Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 836 1996 SCC (7) 155
JT 1995 (9) 195 1995 SCALE (6)727
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellants along with Gurmukh Singh and Sunder
Singh were sent up for trial before the learned Additional
Judge of the Special Court, Ferozepur Zone, Faridkot for
various offences in connection with the death of Pritam Kaur
wife of Mukhtiar Singh appellant. Gurmukh Singh and Sunder
Singh were acquitted of all the charges. Appellant Mukhtiar
Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo six months R.I. The
remaining appellants Kartar Singh, Ran Singh, Dhan Singh and
Piara Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 201
IPC and sentenced to two years RI each and to pay a fine of
Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo RI for one month each. They have filed this appeal
under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special
Courts) Act, 1984 challenging their conviction and sentence.
The prosecution case is that Pritam Kaur deceased was
married to Mukhtiar Singh appellant. She was the cousin
sister of Kartar Singh PW3 and Badri Singh PW5. The
relationship between Mukhtiar Singh and Pritam Kaur-deceased
were said to be strained and the deceased was being
maltreated in her matrimonial home. On 11.3.84, Kartar Singh
PW3- a cousin of the deceased and Sarpanch of the village
was irrigating his field at about 5 p.m. when he heard noise
from the side of the house of the appellants and went there.
He found all the appellants present armed with dangs. In his
presence, Kartar Singh appellant exhorted his sons to finish
Pritam Kaur deceased and thereupon his sons assaulted the
deceased with dangs on various parts of her body. Appellant
Mukhtiar Singh dealt a dangs blow on the back of the neck of
Pritam Kaur as a result of which she fell down and died.
Kartar Singh PW3 protested but was told to mind his own
affairs by the appellants. He left for the village and on
the way, met Bhag Singh PW4 and narrated the occurrence to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
him. On 12.3.84, Badri Singh PW5 had gone to village
Mansinghwala to have a round of his land which was under
cultivation of his brother, Kartar Singh PW3. After having a
round of the fields, he went to the house of his cousin,
Pritam Kaur deceased and on reaching there, found the dead
body of his cousin Pritam Kaur lying near the door of the
residential room. It was covered with a chaddar. Badri Singh
PW removed the cheddar from the face of the deceased and
noticed some stiffness at the back of the neck. He became
suspicious and immediately left for village Sandahwan to
inform Harnam Singh - father of the deceased. Accompanied by
Harnam Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Wazir Singh and
some others he came back to village Mansinghwala and on
reaching there, learnt that the dead body had already been
removed for cremation. They all then went to the cremation
ground, reaching there at about 2 p.m. The dead body was on
the funeral pyre. Gurmukh Singh, Piara Singh, Sunder Singh,
Kartar Singh, Dhan Singh and Ran Singh (accused) were
feeding fire to the pyre. On seeing Badri Singh, Balwant
Singh PWs and others, they all ran away leaving the dead
body on the pyre and a tractor trolly nearby. The fire was
extinguished and the half burnt dead body was removed from
the pyre. Leaving Balwant Singh, Wazir Singh and Harnam
Singh to take care of the dead body, Badri Singh PW5,
accompanied by Sunder Singh PW went to report the incident
to the police. When they both reached near Sadiq Chowk,
Harbhagwan Singh SHO, Police Station, Sadiq met them. Badri
Singh made a statement before him EX.P5, which was sent by
the SHO to the Police Station and on the basis thereof a
formal FIR EX.P5/B was registered. SI Harbhagwan Singh PW9
thereupon took up the investigation in hand and rushed to
the cremation ground. He took possession of the dead body
and after preparing an inquest report Ex.P3 sent the dead
body to Faridkot for post mortem examination. The autopsy on
the dead body was conducted by a panel of three doctors,
under the supervision of Dr.J.S.Dalal, PW1. The medical
board, after post mortem examination, gave the opinion that
the cause of death was coma as a result of dislocation of
the 2nd and 3rd cervical vertebras and that the injuries
were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature. On completion of the
investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial. Mst.
Lachmi, wife of Kartar Singh was discharged at the initial
stages itself by the trial court.
The prosecution, with a view to connect the appellants
with the crime, relied upon:
(i) Motive;
(ii) Direct evidence of assault on the deceased;
(iii) Extra Judicial Confession;
(iv) Medical evidence;
(v) Conduct of the appellants
Kartar Singh appellant in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. which was also adopted by Mukhtiar Singh and his
other sons denied the prosecution allegations and gave the
defence version to the effect that the deceased had slipped
from the last step of the bamboo stair-case while climbing
on to the roof of the house and had fallen down and
instantaneously died. His sons Mukhtiar Singh and others
were at that time not at the house and were irrigating their
fields. He sent information to them about the death of
Pritam Kaur on receipt of which, they all returned to the
house. He went on to say that he had informed Kartar Singh
PW3- sarpanch of the village, who was a cousin of the
deceased and requested him to inform the parents of the
deceased and after waiting till about 2 p.m. on the next day
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
i.e. for about 20 hours, they took the dead body for
cremation and that while the dead body was being cremated,
the appellants arrived there along with some relations of
the deceased and the police and after taking the dead body
into custody the police arrested them. He denied that the
relations between Mukhtiar Singh and the deceased were
strained. Mukhtiar Singh appellant also gave a similar
version in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
asserted that the deceased was never maltreated.
(i) Motive According to the prosecution case, the
relationship between the deceased and her husband Mukhtiar
Singh appellant were strained and the deceased had told her
brother Balwant Singh that she was being maltreated by her
husband, father-in-law and other members of the family. The
evidence to prove motive is rather scanty. Mukhtiar Singh
and the deceased were married for more than 9 years. They
had two sons and a daughter. Except for Balwant Singh PW, no
one else, not even Kartar Singh PW3, Sarpanch of the village
and cousin of the deceased has spoken about any maltreatment
of the deceased. Even Balwant Singh PW had to admit: "My
sister was never given any beating in my presence. She had
informed me about the beating when she came to our village
prior to her death. We had not taken any panchayat when
Pritam Kaur came to the village after the beating. I had
informed my father what my sister had told me about the
maltreatment but no body had gone to Mansinghwala to meet
accused Kartar Singh and his sons to advise them against the
maltreatment." No neighbour has come forward to support
Balwant Singh either. According to Balwant Singh PW, the
only incident upon which the allegations of the deceased
being maltreated were based was allegeably a slap given to
the deceased about fifteen days prior to the occurrence. If
in 9 years of married life, this was the only incident which
could be recounted, we are of the opinion that the
allegations regarding maltreatment of the deceased by the
appellants have not been proved. The prosecution has, thus
failed to prove that Mukhtiar Singh appellant had any
motive, let alone a ‘strong motive’ to commit the murder of
the deceased. The finding of the trial court to the contrary
is not based on any evidence and is a conjectural finding.
(ii)Direct evidence - The prosecution examined PW3 as
the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. According to his
testimony, it was in his presence that the deceased was
given dang blows by Mukhtiar Singh and his brothers on the
exhortation of Kartar Singh, father of Mukhtiar Singh. He
gave in graphic details the manner in which various injuries
had been caused to the deceased. The trial court found him
to be an unreliable witness and rightly so. His conduct
belies his testimony. Though closely related to the deceased
he did not inform about what he had seen to anyone at all
except to Bhag Singh PW4 who has in his deposition belied
the statement of Kartar Singh PW3 and stated that PW3 had
not told him as to how the deceased had died. According to
Kartar Singh PW3, he did not raise any alarm when injuries
were being caused to the deceased and though the police
station Sadiq is at a distance of 5 kms. from the village
and he besides being relative of the deceased is also the
sarpanch of the village, he did not go to lodge any report.
He admitted that he had not inform any lambardar or any
other person in the village about the incident. During the
cross-examination, he also admitted that he had not even
informed the parents of Pritam Kaur about her death and did
not even disclose what he had seen at the house of Kartar
Singh, to his wife. Not only did he keep quiet about it on
the date of the occurrence but on his own showing, even on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
the next day he did not convey the information to anyone
till his statement came to be recorded during the inquest
proceedings at the cremation ground. The trial court,
rightly commented upon the unnatural behaviour of the
witness and held that he had no occasion to witness the
incident and his evidence was not at all reliable. We agree,
evidence of Kartar Singh PW3 does not at all inspire any
confidence and we have no hesitation to rule the ocular
testimony as provided by him out of consideration.
(iii) Extra judicial confession - Chirag Singh PW7 has
been examined by the prosecution to support its version
regarding the alleged extra judicial confession made by some
of the appellants to him and his producing the appellants
before the police. After considering his evidence in detail,
the trial court opined:
"It is also thus not possible to place
any reliance on the evidence of Chirag
Singh PW that accused Kartar Singh and
his sons Mukhtiar Singh, Ran Singh and
Dhan Singh had made any extra judicial
confession before him."
We are in complete agreement with the above finding of the
trial court which is based on proper appreciation of the
evidence on the record. In our opinion the investigating
agency falsely introduced this witness to lend support to
another false witness, Kartar Singh PW3 and thereby exposed
the tainted nature of investigation.
(iv) Medical evidence - According to PW1, Dr. Dalal, the
cause of death was coma as a result of dislocation of
2nd/3rd cervical vertibra which was ante mortem in nature
and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. The doctor then opined the possibility of the
dislocation of second and third vertibares due to lathi blow
cannot ruled out, but since the body was in a burnt
condition it was not possible to specify the exact type of
the weapon with which the injury may have been caused.
During the cross-examination, PW1 admitted the possibility
of injuries No.1, 2 and 3 on the dead body of Pritam Kaur
having been suffered in a fall from a height cannot be ruled
out. At the places where injuries No.1 and 2 were located no
bony injury was found. Thus, we find that the medical
evidence is neither deceissive nor conclusive and it fails
to connect the appellants with the crime and does not go
against the defence version of the deceased having died
instantaneously as a result of the fall. The absence of any
bony injury is more consistent with the defence version than
the prosecution case.
(v) Conduct of the appellants - According to the
prosecution, the conduct of the appellants in (i) cremating
the body in ‘hot haste’ without waiting for the relations of
the deceased and (ii) running away from the cremation ground
at the arrival of Balwant Singh PW5 and others, establishes
their guilty conscience and positively connects them with
the crime.
The conduct of one accused is indeed a relevant
consideration to be taken note of by the courts while
considering the correctness or otherwise of the prosecution
version but in this case evidence led by the prosecution to
demonstrate the guilty conscience of the appellants is
wholly unsatisfactory.
The deceased had died at about 5 p.m. on 11.3.84.
According to the accused, they had requested Kartar Singh
PW3 to inform the parents of the deceased. Kartar Singh PW3
has of course denied that he was told to inform the parents
of the deceased. Even if we believe PW3 in that behalf, it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
does not stand to reason that PW3, a first cousin of the
deceased and sarpanch of the village, would not have sent
any information to the parents of the deceased about her
death. That apart, admittedly the dead body was not removed
to the cremation ground till 2 p.m. on 12.3.84 i.e. till
nearby twenty hourse after the death, we fail to appreciate
how then could the trial court hold that the cremation was
conducted in ‘hot haste’. The accused had apparently waited
for sufficient time after the death to cremate the dead
body. Had the accused any intention to cremate the body
"secretly" or in "hot haste", as found by the trial court,
nothing prevented them from disposing the dead body during
the night intervening 11th and 12th March 1984. We are of
the considered opinion that the finding of the trial court
is based on surmises and conjectures and is unsustainable.
In so far as the allegation that the appellants had run
away from the cremation ground on the arrival of PW5, PW6
and others, it also has not been established.
Evidence of Badri Singh PW5 and Balwant Singh PW6 was
pressed into aid to show the conduct of the appellants at
the time of cremation after the arrival of the relations of
the deceased. Both these witnesses stated that on the
arrival of the relations at the cremation ground, the
appellants ran away leaving the tractor trolly and the dead
body burning on the pyre unattended. However, Kartar Singh
Sarpanch PW3, who was also present at the time of cremation,
stated that he was present at the cremation ground on
12.3.84 and had found the appellants and many other persons
present there at that time. He did not state that the
appellants had run away from the place of occurrence and on
the other hand deposed that the accused were taken into
custody by the police from the cremation ground itself.
Of course, PW9 Harbhagwan Singh SI in his statement
deposed that Piara Singh had been arrested on 15.3.84 and
the other appellants on 18.3.84 but conceded in the light of
the statement given by Kartar Singh PW3 that the accused had
been taken away by the police from the cremation ground
itself completely belies the assertion of the investigating
officer PW9 as well as the statements of PW5 and PW6. The
prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the
appellants had run away from the cremation ground at the
arrival of the relations of the deceased on the contrary it
appears, as stated by the appellants themselves in their
statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they had
been arrested from the cremation ground itself and taken
into custody by the investigating officer. The prosecution
has thus failed to establish any incriminating conduct on
the part of the appellants.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the
investigating agency not only attempted to introduce false
eye-witness but also made crude attempts to press into aid
alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellants to
PW7 besides putting forward the objectionable conduct of the
appellants. The investigation, in the case, in our opinion,
has been tainted and that taint detracts materially from the
reliability of the prosecution case as a whole.
The prosecution evidence on the record is wholly
insufficient touring home the charge against the appellants.
The trial court fell in error even after noticing the
serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, to have
convicted the appellants. Their conviction and sentence
cannot be sustained. This appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside.
The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6