AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The accused-appellant, Swaroop @ Saroop Singh, is the first informant, who had presented the written report (Exhibit-P/5) on the basis of which FIR No. 396/04 (Exhibit-P/50) was registered at the Police Station Deeg, Bharatpur. As per the written report, the appellant, Swaroop Singh was present at the place of occurrence along with the deceased, Shiv Shanker and had witnessed the murder of Shiv Shanker.
During the investigation, the version given by the appellant, Swaroop was not found to be true. The investigation agency came to the conclusion that in fact, on 11.6.2004 at 8:00 PM, the appellant himself had committed the murder of Shiv Shanker on the flat area on the Januthar Road.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur, vide the impugned judgment dated 8.12.2006, held the appellant, Swaroop guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section 3/25 Arms Act. Having convicted the appellant for the said offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under:--
"U/s 302 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year imprisonment.
U/s 3/25 Arms Act- to undergo two year S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month additional imprisonment."
Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant, Swaroop has filed the present appeal before this Court.
It will be apposite here to reproduce the true translation of the written report (Exhibit-P/5) submitted by the appellant before Sub-Inspector, Hari Singh Choudhary (P.W.33), the Investigation Officer, who was then posted at the Police Station, Deeg, as under:
"To SHO Saheb, Kotwali, Deeg (Bharatpur) Sub:- Sir,
Apropos to above subject, it is submitted that today i.e. on 11.6.2004, at about 8:00 PM, I and Shiv Shanker after closing our shop of fertilizer and seeds, which is situated in old Grain Market, Deeg town on our motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 05 3057 were going to our village Januthar. When we had crossed the crossing of Panhori village and had reached at broken culvert, on the Januthar road, three persons were found standing on the Puliya (culvert). They were armed with lathis and arms. After we had slowed the vehicle, they started causing us injuries with lathis and dragged us hundreds of yards away from the road. When Shiv Shanker asked them why are you beating us, they snatched the watch and the money which was with us. When, Shiv Shanker opposed the same, they fired a shot from country made pistol. The shot fired hit on the left side of chest of Shiv Shanker. Due to darkness, I cannot identify the assailants. I taking the benefit of darkness ran away from the spot saving myself. I informed about the occurrence to my relations at Shahpur. They gave information to the police. Due to beating caused by the assailants (Badmash) I have suffered injury on the head. Blood is oozing out of the injury. I have suffered injuries due to lathi blow given. I am making report. Legal action be taken. Badmash be arrested.
Sd/- Swaroop Singh S/o. Rajveer r/o - Januthar, Dee."
The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 11.6.2004 at 8:00 PM. The appellant, Swaroop had lodged the report on 11.6.2004 at 11:30 PM at Community Health Center, Deeg and the investigation proceeded. During the investigation on 29.6.2004, the appellant is alleged to have suffered an extra-judicial confession and on 1.7.2004, the appellant was arrested.
The investigating agency had not believed the present appellant, Swaroop, as a solitary eyewitness of the occurrence and on the basis of following incriminating circumstances, had sent the appellant for trial:
A: Extra-Judicial Confession:
The appellant had suffered the extra-judicial confession before Durgi Ram (P.W.15), Harpal Singh (P.W.16), Deep Chand (P.W.17) and Man Singh @ Bablu (P.W.22).
B: Motive:
As per the prosecution, the appellant was annoyed with the deceased, Shiv Shankar, as on 6.6.2004, he had seen his wife, Shagun in compromising position with the deceased Shiv Shankar. This fact has emerged in the evidence of Chetan Singh (P.W.12) and Jagram (P.W.13). Besides these two witnesses, the factum of motive has also emerged in the testimony of witnesses to whom appellant had made extra-judicial confession. The four witnesses of extra-judicial confession, as stated earlier are Durgi Ram (P.W.15), Harpal Singh (P.W.16), Deep Chand (P.W.17) and Man Singh @ Bablu (P.W.22).
C: Last seen:
The evidence of last seen: Admittedly, the appellant, Swaroop, was at the place of occurrence, immediately after the murder of Shiv Shankar was caused, he was found at the spot along with the deceased by Satveer (P.W.5), Suresh Chandra @ Guddha (P.W.7), Ramveer Singh (P.W.8), Rajesh (P.W.9) and Indrapal Singh (P.W.11). Defence also uses this piece of evidence to corroborate version given by the accused.
D: Injury on the head of Accused/Appellant:
Another circumstance which has been construed against the appellant, Swaroop is that he had also suffered an injury on his head, in the occurrence. The duration of injury is similar to the duration of the injury suffered by the deceased Shiv Shankar. Furthermore, as per extra-judicial confession, the deceased has caused injury on the right eye of the accused allegedly with brass Kada worn by the deceased. He had also caused an injury as per extra-judicial confession with the stone on the parietal region of the head of the appellant. This fact has emerged in the testimony of witnesses before whom the appellant, Swaroop had allegedly made extra-judicial confession.
E: Recovery of country made pistol from the accused:
The appellant got recovered a country made pistol in the presence of Devi Singh (P.W.23) and Moti Singh (P.W.25) from the bushes on the flat area around the road , where the occurrence had allegedly taken place.
F: Conduct:
The trial court had also taken into account the conduct of the appellant to lodge the false report as an incriminating circumstance.
G: Recovery of blood stained clothes:
Recovery of blood stained clothes, at the behest of the accused, Swaroop, which were worn by him at the time of occurrence, is another incriminating circumstance construed against him. To prove this circumstance, the prosecution has examined Bane Singh (P.W.18) and Moti Singh (P.W.25).
H: Recovery of Kada of deceased from accused:
Lastly, the prosecution has relied upon the recovery of brass Kada of the deceased from accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused in presence of Bane Singh (P.W.18) from the cremation ground from ashes of pyre of the deceased, Shiv Shankar.
Before we proceed to take notice of the incriminating evidence, analyze and dissect the same, it is to be noted that so far evidence of last seen, injuries sustained by the accused, his conduct, recovery of clothes are concerned, these pieces of evidence had emerged in the version given by the accused and nothing hinges upon them, as they lend corroboration to the version unfolded by the accused, Swaroop in the written report (Exhibit-P/5). However, to twist the version, and complete the chain of incriminating circumstances, the court has to really, ponder and examine quality and nature of evidence qua incriminating evidence of extra-judicial confession, which also disclosed motive and testimony of witnesses of motive, recovery of country made pistol and recovery of Kada. It is to be noted that if the version given in the written report (Exhibit-P/5) is accepted, per se, then also there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant, Swaroop was present at the spot along with the deceased, Shiv Shankar, when the occurrence had taken place. As per his own version, he had suffered injuries in the said occurrence, when Shiv Shanker had suffered fire arm shot leading to his death.
It is also not in dispute that since the deceased, Shiv Shankar was travelling along with the appellant, after he had suffered injury, the appellant had handled his body and thus, his clothes were stained with blood of deceased.
Mr. Nikhilesh Katara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, to dislodge the prosecution case, has also highlighted three facts during the course of arguments, which are as under-
"(i) That the witnesses of the last seen, immediately after the occurrence, had seen some persons running away from the spot.
(ii) That a dog squad was requisitioned and the sniffer dogs had tracked towards the house of one Uddhyan Singh Jogi, who belonged to Jogiya community in the nearby village. It is urged that Jogiya community is involved in commission of petty crimes of extortion/loot etc.
(iii) That an application for conducting Lie Detection Test of the appellant, Swaroop was moved on 25.6.2004 and therefore, it is submitted that the appellant was taken into custody before the alleged date of extra-judicial confession. Therefore, the extra judicial confession is not admissible in the evidence, as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act."
Now, we shall take note of the prosecution evidence.
The evidence of the Extra-Judicial Confession:--
Durgi Ram (P.W.15) and Man Singh @ Bablu (P.W.22) are uncles (Chacha) of the deceased Shiv Shankar. Harpal Singh (P.W.16) is real Jija (husband of sister of the deceased) and also a partner with the deceased Shiv Shankar, in the shop of selling fertilizer and seeds. Deep Chand (P.W.17) is real brother of Harpal Singh. These all four witnesses to extra-judicial confession are close relatives of the deceased, Shiv Shankar. The accused Swaroop, the deceased Shiv Shankar, Durgi Ram and Maan Singh are residents of village Januthar, whereas Harpal and his brother Deep Chand are residents of village Shahpur. These witnesses have admitted that neither they are Panch nor Sarpanch, nor they wield any authority nor their any relation is police officials.
Durgi Ram (P.W.15) stated that on 29.6.2004, he along with Man Singh (P.W.22) was sitting in the house of Deep Chand (P.W.17) at village Shahpur. They were talking about the murder of Shiv Shankar. Then accused Swaroop came. He caught hold of feet of Deep Chand and said that he had killed Shiv Shankar. He be saved. On asking of Deep Chand, as to why he had done the same, Swaroop told that on one day they had gone to village from Deeg at 7:00 in the evening. They parked their motorcycle near his room. On entering into his room, he told his wife to fill water, as he had to go to toilet to ease himself. The appellant had gone to ease himself. When he returned, he saw his wife and Shiv Shankar naked on one cot. Seeing his wife in compromising position, he had said nothing but resolved that he will commit murder of Shiv Shankar. On the fateful day, when he was going along with Shiv Shanker to Januthar, between Panhor Shishwada on the flat area , he stopped the motorcycle. Nobody was there. He took out the country made pistol and aimed the same at Shiv Shankar. Shiv Shankar gave a blow with Kada. Then he killed Shiv Shankar with the country made pistol and later made a false story that three gundas came. After coming to know that Swaroop had killed Shiv Shankar, this witness told Deep Chand to inform the police. Swaroop said that police is harassing him. The witness stated that he knew Swaroop, as he is resident of his village.
In cross-examination this witness stated that Man Singh was sitting in the house of Harpal Singh (P.W.16), what is to be noted is that Durgi Ram (P.W.15) had not named Harpal as one before whom extra-judicial confession was made. This witness stated that shop at Deeg belonged to Shiv Shankar and Harpal Singh. Swaroop was employed in the shop. Harpal Singh and Deep Chand are brothers. Deep Chand is the same person in whose house both were sitting. He further stated that he and Man Singh are uncles of deceased Shiv Shankar. In Januthar, Man Singh and Shiv Shankar were residing in different houses. One or two months before the occurrence, Swaroop was going to the shop of the deceased Shiv Shankar. Whether earlier thereto, accused was working with Shiv Shankar witness had no knowledge. This witness further stated that "in village Januthar before 29.6.2004, Swaroop had not told him anything about the murder of Shiv Shankar".
It is to be noted that Durgi Ram and Swaroop are residents of village Januthar. The witness further stated that Shiv Shankar had died on 11.6.2004 and neither he nor his relative had made report regarding murder of Shiv Shankar to the police. This witness further stated that the accused Swaroop had told, having seen his wife in compromising position with Shiv Shankar on 6th of the month, and since then till 11th June, Swaroop and Shiv Shankar were going to shop together. The witness further stated in the cross examination that from 11.6.2004, till 29.6.2004, the police was daily coming to the village. The witness stated that it is not in his knowledge that police had requisitioned the dog squad. The witness further stated that upon confession made by Swaroop, that he had killed Shiv Shankar, neither he was apprehended nor he was handed over to the police.
It will be apposite here to reproduce following portion of the testimony of the said witness, as under:--
The witness further admitted that Deep Chand whose feet accused had touched, is elder brother of Harpal Singh. However, the witness was confronted with his previous statement (Exhibit-D/7) recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein factum regarding motive that accused had seen his wife in compromising position with Shiv Shankar on a cot is not mentioned. The witness stated that it is not recorded in his previous statement, but he had told this fact to the police. The witness further stated that after admitting his guilt, Swaroop along with Man Singh came to Januthar.
Harpal Singh (P.W.16) stated that on 29.6.2004 at about 8:00 PM, he was in the house of elder brother Deep Chand along with Durgi Ram and Man Singh. They were all having conversation regarding murder of Shiv Shankar. Swaroop came their and caught hold of feet of Deep Chand and started weeping and admitted his mistake and sought forgiveness and told that he had committed the murder of Shiv Shankar. The story which was narrated by Durgi Ram was also stated by this witness. This witness stated that after hearing what was told by Swaroop they told him to go to police station and inform the police. The accused told that he is being harassed by the police. Therefore, he cannot tell the same to the police. Then, Swaroop, Man Singh and Durgi Ram returned to their village. ". The witness further stated that Swaroop was employed in the shop owned by him along with Shiv Shankar.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that they were having seed shop at Deeg and same is owned by him along with the deceased Shiv Shankar. Swaroop was employed a month before the occurrence. This witness further admitted that the accused appellant had lodged the report regarding murder of Shiv Shankar. He further admitted that Durgi Ram and Man Singh are uncles of the deceased. The witness further stated that on 29th June when accused touched the feet of Deep Chand, he had not asked anybody whether any report has been made to the police or not? He stated that he learnt after 12-13 days after the occurrence that report regarding murder of brother-in-law, Shiv Shankar was lodged by Swaroop. He further admitted that for the last 12 days, he was going to the house of the deceased and used to sit in condolence. There, Deep Chand, Durgi Ram and Man Singh also used to meet him. The witness further stated that from 11th June till 29th June, police had sought no information from him regarding murder of Shiv Shankar or the fact that the accused Swaroop, was employed at the shop. He further stated that till 29th June, he had no suspicion regarding the conduct of appellant Swaroop. He further stated that the occurrence was narrated to his brother Deep Chand and remaining three were listening. He further admitted that nobody in his family is posted in police or is leader or minister. He further stated that his brother after accused had made confession, told that he had done very bad act, neither they apprehended him nor they got him arrested.
This witness further stated that in the night of 29th after the accused had made confession, he had not gone to police station Deeg to inform regarding murder of Shiv Shankar. He further stated that they had relayed the information to the police on 30th June.
Deep Chand (P.W.17) stated that he was in his house along with Harpal Singh, Man Singh and Durgi, they were talking about the murder of Shiv Shankar. Then accused Swaroop S/o. Rajveer came at 8:00 PM. He touched the feet of witness and requested him to save him and had further informed that on the day of occurrence, at about 7:00 - 8:00 PM, he along with Shiv Shankar had come to village Januthar. He stopped the motorcycle on the road where the surrounding area was flat. He stopped the motorcycle to take Bidi. He took out the country made pistol. Shiv Shankar was wearing Kada. He received an injury by Kada on the head and then fired from the country made pistol at Shiv Shankar and then raised a noise that three persons came and had caused injuries. He further stated that on the 6th of the month, he had gone to his house along with Shiv Shankar. He had gone to ease himself. When he came out, he saw his wife in compromising position with Shiv Shankar and on that day he decided that he will finish Shiv Shankar. This witness further stated that on 30th, he narrated to the police the fact that accused had made an extra-judicial confession. This witness further stated that on the day of occurrence in his presence police had taken various articles from the spot including live cartridge.
In cross-examination this witness admitted that Shiv Shankar is brother in law (Sala of younger brother), and he is the elder of the house. He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he received information at 10:00 - 11:00 PM that Swaroop has informed that Shiv Shankar was killed by three persons. This witness further stated that till 29th they had no suspicion against Swaroop and when Swaroop told them he believed that he had committed the murder.
This witness further stated to be correct that till 29th of the month he had no talk with Swaroop. He further stated to be correct that regarding the incident of 6th he came to know on 29th. Then stated that the same was not known to him before 29th. The witness admitted that neither he is Panch nor Sarpach nor his any relative is a police official. The witness further stated that before 29th accused Swaroop had never shared anything with him. The witness admitted to be correct that all the four persons had not apprehended Swaroop and had not handed him over to the police.
Man Singh @ Bablu (P.W.22) is also witness to the extra-judicial confession. This witness has also deposed on the similar lines regarding motive and extra-judicial confession made by the accused as three witnesses namely Durgi Ram, (P.W.15), Harpal Singh (P.W.16) and Deep Chand (P.W.17) had deposed before the court. This witnesses also attested the memo regarding recoveries effected from the spot. This witness further stated that police had recovered a brass Kada vide memo Exhibit-P/12 from cremation ground.
In cross-examination this witness stated that relationship between the deceased and the accused was very cordial. He admitted that the report regarding incident was lodged by Swaroop and he alongwith Swaroop were trying to find out who had committed the murder. This witness denied having any knowledge that on 12.6.2004 police had requisitioned the Dog Squad and the dogs have tracked to the house of Jogi who was residing at a distance of one and a half kilometer from the place of occurrence in village Sheeshbag. This witness further stated that it is not in his knowledge that Dog Squad had gone to house of Udhya Singh Jogi. The witness stated that after accused has made confession, they had gone to their village leaving the accused at village Shahpur. To be precise, the witness stated as under:--
This witness admitted that neither he is Panch or Sarpanch and before 29th the accused had neither any sharing with him nor accused told him his any secret.
Having noted the evidence of extra judicial confession, we are of the view that witnesses wield no influence with any authority or with the police. They are closely related to the deceased being uncle, Jija and brother of the Jija. They are interested witnesses. There was no reason for the accused to make extra-judicial confession to these witnesses.
It has been acknowledged by the courts that the extra-judicial confession is normally a weak type of evidence. It is not safe to rely on the extra judicial confession and the court should always seek some corroboration from some independent evidence or sources. In the present case, the prosecution tend to rely upon recovery of Kada, injury on the person of deceased and story of motive to lend corroboration to the extra-judicial confession. For the reasons to be stated later, we find recovery of Kada and the story of motive which has emerged in the testimony of Chetan Singh (P.W.12) and Jagram (P.W.13) not to be reliable pieces of evidence. So far an injury on the person of accused is concerned, as per written report, he has suffered injury in the occurrence. Since corroborative evidence pressed by the prosecution has not been found reliable by us, we have to seriously consider as to what evidentiary value should be extended by us to the extra-judicial confession, which has come in the testimony of close relatives of the deceased. Admittedly, the relations of the deceased are neither Panch nor Sarpanch nor they wield any clout, nor their any relation is a police official or officer having any influence in the administration.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1997) CriLJ 390 had observed as under:--
"10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution, where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances its credibility become doubtful and it loses its importance. The courts generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra-judicial confession."
We also find conduct of the witnesses to be improbable. On 29th at about 8:00 PM, the accused had come to the house of Deep Chand, elder brother of Harpal Singh. The witness make us believe that four persons Deep Chand (P.W.17), Harpal Singh (P.W.16), Man Singh (P.W.22) and Durgi Ram (P.W.15) were sitting together. Accused made a confession and very casually slipped out of the house. Neither he was detained nor was taken to the police. Normal reaction of very close relations will be to react and to apprehend the accused and to take him to the police. No inquiry was made from the accused. He just came to make confession and left the place.
In this context, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was apprehended before 29.6.2004, by the police and the evidence of extra-judicial confession was concocted, seem probable.
The Investigating Officer Hari Singh Choudhary (P.W.33) denied the specific suggestion that Swaroop was taken into custody on 23.6.2004. He further stated that it is not in his knowledge that on 25.6.2004, DGI had written a letter for conducting lie detection test of the accused. This witness clarified that earlier they had no suspicion against the accused and only on 30.6.2004, on the basis of statement made by the four witnesses to extra judicial confession, they suspected the present appellant to be accused.
Apparently, the investigating agency is not coming with clean hands to the court.
Dr. Vibharani (P.W.29) who had conducted Lie Detection Test upon the appellant on 6.7.2004, in the court had stated that they had received request from CID(CB) Jaipur, on 25.6.2004 that Polygraph test of Swaroop is to be conducted.
Taking totality of circumstances that witnesses to extra-judicial confession are very close relations of the deceased, their conduct in not apprehending the accused and not taking him to the police, they permitted him to leave their house, and the doubt as to why the accused came to their house to blurt out the extra-judicial confession, make us doubt the evidence of extra-judicial confession, especially when the evidence of recovery of Kada and introduction of witnesses of motive at highly belated stage are not reliable corroborative pieces of evidence and have been created to involve the accused with crime. We accept the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that possibility that the appellant was taken into custody before 25.6.2004 cannot be ruled out. Therefore, a confession made by the accused Swaroop in the custody of the police will be inadmissible, as it has rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that such a confession will be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, we discard the evidence of extra judicial confession as a made up piece of evidence.
Motive:--
Chetan Singh (P.W.12) and Jagram (P.W.13) are two witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder of Shiv Shankar.
Chetan Singh (P.W.12) stated in the court that they had good relation with the deceased Shiv Shankar and relations between Shiv Shankar and Swaroop were cordial. Shiv Shankar before going to his house used to go to the house of the accused. He used to take sweets for the house of the accused Swaroop. Shiv Shankar was murdered on 11.6.2004 and before his murder, he had an affair with the lady of the house of Swaroop. A month before the murder, they had seen one lady of the house of Swaroop having conversation with Shiv Shankar. Upon seeing him, Shiv Shankar left her house and lady went to her house. After murder, they had narrated the incident of having seen Shiv Shankar with lady of house of Swaroop together to his brother Lal Singh (P.W.6). It is stated that when they had narrated the incident to Lal Singh, he started weeping. He further stated that they never knew as to how and by whom Shiv Shankar was murdered.
In cross-examination, this witness stated that the day he had seen Shiv Shankar talking with the lady of the house of Swaroop, he alongwith Jagram (P.W.13) was going to their fields. This witness further stated that he cannot tell that which date and in which month, he has seen Shiv Shankar sitting in the house of Swaroop. This witness further stated that he knew the ladies of the house of Swaroop. There are three to four young ladies in the house. This witness further stated that he cannot identify the lady with whom Shiv Shankar was talking.
This witness further denied that he disclosed above facts to the police after two months of the occurrence. He stated that he narrated the incident to the police after one month. He further stated that when he disclosed the above facts to the police, Swaroop had already been arrested. The witness stated that it is possible that he made statement to the police for the first time on 14.8.2014. This witness further could not gave any explanation as to why, what has been stated by him in the court regarding friendship of Shiv Shankar, the same was not recorded in his police statement. It will be necessary to reproduce the following portion of the statement of the witness:
This witness further stated that Swarooop was earlier living in a hut and he had built a Pakka house. Therefore, he gathered an impression that the money may have been given by Shiv Shankar.
To similar effect, is the statement of Jagram (P.W.13). This witness in the cross-examination stated that after the accused had confessed his guilt, one month thereafter, he had narrated the incident regarding motive and after two months of the death of Shiv Shankar, they had told to the police. The following portion of the statement made by Jagram (P.W.13) are required to be noted:
It is to be noted that the statement of Chetan Singh (P.W.12) and Jagram (P.W.13), Exhibit-D/5 and Exhibit-D/6, respectively, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded by the police on 14.8.2004. The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 11.6.2004. The alleged extra-judicial confession was made by Swaroop on 29.6.2004 and he was arrested on 1.7.2004. As to why, for a period of one month and fourteen days, the witnesses had not narrated what was seen by them to the police or to the other witnesses of the extra-judicial confession, make testimony of these witnesses doubtful. The witnesses had good relation with the family of Shiv Shankar. They were available to them. Still, they had not disclosed the important facts to which they were privy to the police. As to why the statement was made by these witnesses at a belated stage. No explanation is forthcoming. Thus, it can be safely assumed that the Investigating Officer introduced these witnesses to the motive only to lend corroboration to the extra-judicial confession.
We exclude the evidence of these witnesses as they are made up witnesses and introduced as an after-thought, at highly belated stage.
Evidence of last seen:
So far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, in the written report (Exhibit-P/5) lodged by the accused-appellant Swaroop and the FIR (Exhibit-P/50) registered on the basis thereof, it is categoric stand of the accused-appellant that he had accompanied Shiv Shankar and he was also caused injuries by three unknown assailants, who had committed the murder of the deceased.
Suresh Chandra @ Guddha (P.W.7) stated that on the day of occurrence, on a private truck, he used to load and unload bricks. Indrapal Singh (P.W.11) and Rajesh (P.W.9) used to work with him. They had unloaded the bricks and they were going towards village Moreli in the truck. Rajesh (P.W.9), Indrapal Singh (P.W.11) and Ramveer Singh (P.W.8) and Vikram were travelling with him. When they had gone little ahead, they had seen, before reaching Panori they saw that two persons were coming on a tractor. They had also seen one motorcycle coming from wrong side on which Swaroop and Shiv Shankar were going. When they reached on the flat area surrounding the road, they saw one man came running ran towards them. They identified him to be Swaroop of village Januthar. Swaroop disclosed them that some hooligans (Badmash) had killed his brother and they ran towards Panori. To look for hooligans, this witness took his truck towards field. They had not seen anybody. Swaroop requested them to take him to Shahpur, but they said that first information report be given at Januthar.
Satveer (P.W.5) stated in the court that he was travelling in the truck along with Suresh Chandra @ Guddha (P.W.7) an another witnesses. He stated that after Swaroop had informed him about the incident, they had seen the dead body of Shiv Shankar in the field. This witness further stated to be correct that Swaroop told them that he is injured and he cannot drive the motorcycle. Therefore, they had given him a driver to take him to Deeg.
Ramveer Singh (P.W.8), another occupant of the truck also reiterated as to what was stated by other witnesses to the last seen, but this witness in the court further stated as under:
This witness further stated that he had seen blood on the clothes of the accused-appellant Swaroop.
Rajesh (P.W.9) was another occupant of the truck. He also supported the other witnesses regarding the accused last seen with the deceased at the place of occurrence.
Indrapal Singh (P.W.11), an another occupant of the truck also stated that he had seen Swaroop along with the dead body. In cross-examination this witness stated as under:--
Therefore, above witnesses have stated in categoric terms that they had seen other persons running away from the spot. Therefore, Indrapal Singh (P.W.11) lend corroboration to the version given by the accused that some other persons had caused injuries to him and Shiv Shankar, which resulted into death of Shiv Shankar.
Be that as it may, the accused-appellant also admit that he was last with the deceased. Therefore, we are left to evaluate the evidence of extra-judicial confession, Motive, recovery of country made pistol and Kada at the behest of the accused-appellant.
To us, nothing hinges upon the evidence of last seen. It is admitted by the accused and in both the versions i.e. one given by the accused and the another by the prosecution, presence of the accused with the deceased is admitted.
However, the fact that Indrapal Singh (P.W.11) had seen somebody running away from the spot, to somewhat lend corroboration to the version given by the accused.
Injury on the head of accused appellant and recovery of Kada and stone:
The accused had admitted that the injury was caused to him by unknown assailants with lathi. At the same time, when injuries were caused to Shiv Shankar. However, in the extra-judicial confession, it has been introduced that the deceased has caused injury with Kada and a stone on the person of accused-appellant. To us, the recovery of Kada is a crude padding on the part of the prosecution. It is stated that the Kada at the time of inquest and Post-Mortem was not removed. In the list of articles recovered from the dead body, Kada has not been noted.
Be that as it may, the prosecution want this Court to believe that on the disclosure made by the accused, from the pyre of the deceased''s ashes in the cremation ground, Kada was recovered. Curiously enough, Kada made up of brass, due to heavy fire, had not melted. We grant even this leeway to the prosecution, if the Kada worn by the deceased, had to be lifted from the pyre, recording of disclosure statement of the accused was superfluous. Therefore, the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/53) has been concocted by the Investigating Officer on 9.7.2004. Similarly, the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/52), recorded on 10.7.2004, accused stating that he will take the police to the spot and will get the stone recovered, which was stained with blood is also a padding. The occurrence had taken place on 11.6.2004. After one month from open and accessible place, getting stone recovered stained with blood is unbelievable. July is the month of monsoon. It may have rained and from an open and accessible place, which is a flat area around the road, to get the stone recovered is too difficult. The Investigating Officer has also created this piece of evidence.
In his cross-examination, Hari Singh Choudhary (P.W.33) stated as under:
This recovery of Kada and stone also lend no corroboration to the extra-judicial confession.
Since, accused on the very first day admitted that the injuries were caused to him, it also lends no corroboration to the extra-judicial confession.
Recovery of country made pistol:
The prosecution has examined Devi Singh (P.W.23) and Moti Singh (P.W.25), who had witnessed the recovery of country made pistol on the basis of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/55) made by the present appellant. In the disclosure statement dated 12.7.2004, it is stated that the accused on the flat area on the road had thrown the country made pistol in the bushes. Devi Singh (P.W.23) and Moti Singh (P.W.25) have stated that as per memo Exhibit-P/21, accused on 13.7.2004, got the country made pistol recovered from the bushes. The place, from which the accused got weapon recovered is open and accessible place. The weapon has been recovered after one month and two days of the occurrence. The recovery of weapon at highly belated stage that too from an open and accessible place, makes the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/55) doubtful. Especially when, the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/55) has not been witnessed by anybody. The accused-appellant had made the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/55) only before the Investigating Officer. It was incumbent for the Investigating Officer to associate some independent witnessed, who ought to have attested the disclosure statement.
Relying upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 : (2002) 3 Crimes 158 : (2002) 6 JT 123 : (2002) 5 SCALE 644 : (2002) 6 SCC 739 : (2002) 1 SCR 581 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3393 : (2002) 5 Supreme 378 , a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a Member in Rameshwar and Dinesh @ Pillu v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 158/2010, decided on 10.11.2014, has observed as under:--
"Having appreciated the evidence of the witness, it is to be noted that disclosure statement Ex-P/22 as made by Munesh is not attested by any witness what to say of any independent witness. Ex. P/22 is recorded on 31st July, 2006 at 11 P.M. It is only signed by SHO Police Station, Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur. It was held in Harjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 : (2002) 3 Crimes 158 : (2002) 6 JT 123 : (2002) 5 SCALE 644 : (2002) 6 SCC 739 : (2002) 1 SCR 581 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3393 : (2002) 5 Supreme 378 that disclosure statement should be signed by independent person and Investigating officer should not associate any eye witness with the recovery memos. In the present case, no witness was associated at the time when disclosure statement was made. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure statement was made voluntary without any duress or coercion. To justify voluntary character of disclosure statement, it ought to be recorded in the presence of witnesses, it is to be noted that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that nothing stated to police is admissible in evidence. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses."
Even otherwise, the report of the FSL (Exhibit-P/59) states that definite time as when the last fire could have been made from the barrel could not be ascertained and furthermore, fifteen lead pellets and three wad pieces could have been fired from the 12-bore country made pistol. Therefore, no definite opinion was given by the FSL experts. Firing of 12-bore cartridge as a test fire cartridge, in no way improve the case of the prosecution.
Recovery of clothes and conduct:
Taking into account that the report of FSL (Exhibit-P/59) is not definite report, it only says could have been fired, the recovery of country made pistol was effected after a delay of one month and two days, that too from an open and accessible place and disclosure statement was not witnessed by any independent witnesses, we shall exclude the recovery of country made pistol from the accused as an incriminating circumstance.
Recovery of pant and shirt at the behest of the accused from his house has been witnessed by Bane Singh (P.W.18) and Moti Singh (P.W.25). It is admitted case of the accused that he had suffered injuries and had handled the dead body of the deceased Shiv Shankar. Even otherwise, as per the report of the FSL (Exhibit-P/58), only human blood has been found on the clothes. The FSL had stated that the blood group could not be determined on pant and shirt. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that due to sufferance of injury, the clothes may have been stained with the blood of the accused. As stated by us earlier, that the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/51) regarding recovery of clothes is also not witnessed by any independent person.
For the reasons stated earlier, to disbelieve the recovery of country made pistol, we will not construe the recovery of clothes as incriminating circumstance.
So far as the recovery of clothes is concerned, he has given definite version. Hari Singh Choudhary (P.W.33) in his cross-examination admitted that Dog Squad was called and the dog squad tracking the smell had gone to the house of Udhyami Singh Jogi. The following portion of the cross-examination of the witness is required to be noted as under:
No reason has been spell out by the Investigating Officer as to why the report of Dog Squad has been withheld from the court. What was the result of interrogation of Udhyam Singh Jogi, was also withheld from the court.
The learned Public Prosecutor could not rebut the forceful contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the members of Jogiya community are engaged in criminal activities. We will not comment on the assertion made by the counsel for the accused-appellant, but we are of the view that fair investigation demanded that the Investigating Officer ought to have placed on record the report of the Dog Squad.
We have found the evidentiary value of the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution to be doubtful. Weak and motivated evidence introduced at the later stage to bring home or prove the guilt of the accused is not sufficient. We are not satisfied with the quality of the evidence led by the prosecution. Suspicion however, grave cannot take place of proof, hence, taking totality of circumstances, as a matter of abundant caution, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant Swaroop and set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and acquit him of all the charges.
As a result of above discussion, the appeal is accepted.