Allowed

Balbir Singh v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Aug 2014CR.A/63/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeal against a conviction under section 302 IPC for murder, the High Court examined contradictions in prosecution witness statements and questioned the validity of the accused's extra-judicial confession. Finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies regarding the witness account of the assault and lack of motive evidence, the Court allowed th

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment and order dated 19.2.2013 and 21.2.2013 set aside; accused acquitted and released forthwith.

Balbir Singh Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Criminal Appeal No. 63/2013 Reserved on: 28.7.2014 Decided on:4.8. 2014

¶3

______ _____________________________________________ Balbir Singh. …Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________

¶4

Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes

¶7

For the Appellant: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G.

¶8

Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

¶9

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 19.2.2013 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 11-S/7 of 2011 whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶11

¶12

directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Inderjeet Singh (now deceased) and accused Balbir Singh were employed in Micro Turner Factory situated at Parwanoo. PW-1 Mithlesh Singh was employed as maintenance operator in the factory. 200 employees were working in the factory. There was a holiday in the factory on 26.1.2011. However, maintenance cell of the factory was functioning on 26.1.2011 to carry out urgent repairs and maintenance work of certain machines. Accused Balbir Singh and deceased Inderjeet Singh alongwith 2022 workers were working in the maintenance cell of the factory. Accused and deceased were working in the gallery of the factory. Mithlesh Singh was also present in the factory on that day. At about 2.45 P.M., while Mithlesh Singh was working in the factory, he heard the noise of a quarrel from the gallery side. He alongwith Ajay Kumar went towards the gallery and noticed that accused was giving beatings with an iron rod to deceased Inderjeet Singh, who was lying in the drain. Mithlesh and Ajay Kumar raised alarm upon which other employees of the factory also reached the spot. Accused admitted to have killed Inderjeet Singh. Mithlesh Singh, Ajay Kumar and others took Inderjeet Singh to E.S.I. Hospital, Parwanoo.

¶14

¶15

Inderjeet Singh had received injuries on his head. Medical Officer declared Inderjeet Singh as brought dead. Medical Officer telephonically informed Police Station, Parwanoo, on the basis of which Rapat No. 32 Ex.PW-5/A was recorded in the Rojnamcha at Police Station, Parwanoo. Inquest report was prepared. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. Photographs of the dead body were also taken. Statement of complainant Mithlesh Singh was also recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR No. 16 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station, Parwanoo. Accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/C on 27.1.2011, on the basis of which two pieces of iron rods Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6 were recovered. According to the medical opinion, deceased died because of ante-mortem head injury. Investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

¶16

Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. He stated that he is innocent. According to him, deceased slipped from cylinder and fell in the drain and sustained injury. Deceased was working far away from him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan convicted and sentenced

¶17

¶18

the accused as noticed hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal.

¶19

Mr. Dalip K. Sharma has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

¶20

Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan.

¶21

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

¶22

PW-1 Mithlesh Kumar has deposed that on 26.1.2011 at about 2.45 P.M., he heard the noise of quarrel in the gallery. While they were proceeding towards the place from where the noise was coming, accused met them on the way and told that he has given iron rod blow on the head of Inderjeet Singh. He had fallen in the drain. He was armed with an iron rod at that time. He, Naveen and Ajay went to the spot and noticed that Inderjeet was lying in the drain. Other employees also arrived there. They took Inderjeet to the Hospital where the Medical Officer declared him brought dead. He made his statement Ex.PW-1/A. Police called him on 27.1.2011. Cloth was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. Accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/C that he could get the iron rod recovered from the drain. Accused

¶23

¶24

took the police party to the spot and got recovered the iron rod. The accused while in police custody also disclosed to police in his presence that deceased used to misbehave with accused wife and he had been pressing him to do the work quickly in the factory. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that about half minute was taken by the accused to narrate the incident. Accused accompanied him to the spot where Inderjeet was lying in the drain. The dead body of Inderjeet was lying in the drain when they reached there.

¶25

Statement of PW-2 Rajinder Kumar is formal in

¶26

nature.

¶27

PW-3 Sunil Kumar has deposed that he was operating the computer in the factory. He handed over the appointment and posting order of accused Balbir and deceased Inderjeet to the police. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that accused Balbir joined in the factory on 17.1.2011 and deceased joined on 1.1.2011. There were about 20 employees working in the section, in which deceased and accused were working at the relevant time. There were about 10-12 machines in the section. Sound increases when the machines are in operation. He was on duty on 26.1.2011. He was in the office at that time. Distance of gallery where the deceased and the accused were working was about 50-60 feet from his office.

¶28

¶29

Mithlesh was working in his own section on 26.1.2011. His section is adjoining to gallery. However, in between there was a wall and gate. He had not gone to the spot. He did not hear any noise of quarrel in his section on that day from the gallery where the deceased and accused were working. Naveen was the Incharge of the section in which accused and deceased were working at that time. He has admitted that if there is any complaint regarding work of a particular worker or any other complaint against a worker, then only Incharge of the section attends the complaint and inquire about it.

¶30

PW-4 Dr. Yamini has deposed that police has moved an application Ex.PW-4/A for conducting the postmortem of deceased Inderjeet alongwith inquest papers Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C. She issued post-mortem report Ex.PW-4/E. According to post-mortem report Ext. PW-4/E, the probable cause of death was ante mortem head injury. Time elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 12 to 24 hours.

¶31

PW-5 MHC Ashok Kumar has deposed that on receipt of information from Dr. Kuldeep Jaswal, ESI, Parwanoo rapat No.32 Ex.PW-5/A was recorded. On receiving rukka Ex.PW-1/A brought by constable Vijay Kumar, FIR No.16/2011 was recorded on 26.1.2011. S.I.

¶32

¶33

Kanshi Ram deposited with him one parcel sealed with six seals of ‘K’ containing a blood stained woolen cloth. He made entry in the Malkhana register at Sr. No.409/11. Inspector, Kanwar Singh deposited with him one parcel sealed with six seals of ‘N’ containing one iron rod of the length of 11.2 inches of dia of ½ inch. He made entry in the Malkhana register at Sr. No.410/11. SI Kanshi Ram deposited with him one parcel sealed with 12 seals of ‘K’ containing iron rod of length of about 4 feet 7 ½ inch and dia of ½ inch. He made entry in the Malkhana register. Constable Rajinder Singh deposited with him viscera of deceased Inderjeet Singh. He made entry in the Malkhana register. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that parcel Ex.P-6 was not sent to the laboratory. He has denied that as per RC, small iron rod was not sent to the laboratory. However, according to him, the word iron rod was not specifically mentioned in the RC. Volunteered that it was mentioned in the docket. He has not seen the copy of docket in the court file.

¶34

Statement of PW-6 Amarjeet Singh is formal in nature.

¶35

PW-7 Anil Sehgal is the owner of the factory. According to him, on 26.1.2011, there was holiday in the factory. However, about 20 employees had come for carrying out maintenance work. On 26.1.2011, he was in

¶36

¶37

Delhi. He was telephonically informed by his Commercial Manager Sanjeev Abrol about the incident that two boys fought with each other and one of them has died. He returned to his factory on 27.1.2011.

¶38

PW-8 Raghubir Singh has prepared Khaka Ex.PW-8/A.

¶39

PW-9 ASI Ram Lal has deposed that on 27.1.2011, accused while in police custody made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/C to the effect that he has thrown the iron rod in the drain near factory. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, he took the police party to Sector-4, Micro Turner Factory, Parwanoo. He got recovered iron rod. He took photographs with his own mobile vide Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B. Iron rod was took into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. Khaka Ex.PW-1/F was prepared.

¶40

PW-10 Ajay Kumar has deposed that on 26.1.2011 there was a holiday but 20 workers were deputed for the maintenance work in the factory. He was working inside the workshop alongwith other workers whereas Inderjeet Singh and Balbir Singh were doing their work outside in the gallery. At about 2.45 P.M. accused Balbir Singh came inside the workshop carrying a rod in his hand and stated that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh with rod though he has not seen accused

¶41

¶42

giving the beatings. He went inside the workshop and told about it to Naveen and Mithlesh. The rod was in the hand of accused and he had kept the same by the side of welding machine. Inderjeet Singh was taken to ESI Hospital where he was declared brought dead. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance of gallery from the place of his work was about 30 feet. There was a door in the gallery opening towards outer drain. Conversation of two persons in the gallery was not audible to the persons working in the workshop because of noise of grinder. Accused told him that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh with the rod Ex.P-6. He did not notice any other rod except iron rod Ex.P-6 in the hands of accused.

¶43

PW-11 SI Kanshi Ram has deposed that he filled in form 25.35 A & B Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C. Application Ex.PW-4/A was written for the post-mortem examination of the deed body. He went to the spot and recorded the statement of Mithlesh Ex.PW-1/A under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He prepared site plan Ex.PW-11/A. He also recorded statements of witnesses. He visited ESI Hospital Parwanoo on 27.1.2011. He obtained post-mortem report Ex.PW-4/C. He visited the spot and took into possession one iron rod Ex.P-6 vide memo Ex.PW-1/G.

¶44

¶45

PW-12 K.S. Guleria has partly investigated the case. On 27.1.2011, accused Balbir Singh has given statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he has thrown a piece of iron rod in the factory premises and he can get the same recovered in presence of Mithlesh, Naveen Kumar and ASI Ram Lal. Accused led the police to Micro Turner Factory and got recovered the rod from the drain. Sketch of the rod was prepared.

¶46

The incident is dated 26.1.2011. There was a National Holiday on 26.1.2011. However, 20-22 workers had come to the factory for undertaking repair work. Statement of PW-1 Mithlesh was recorded vide Ex.PW-1/A under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Ex.PW-1/A at about 2.45 P.M. when Mithlesh and other workers were working, he heard noise coming from gallery side. He alongwith Ajay Kumar came out towards the gallery and saw accused administering beating to Inderjeet Singh. Inderjeet singh had fallen in the drain. He and Ajay Kumar raised alarm. Other workers reached the spot. Balbir Singh told them that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh. He and Ajay took Inderjeet Singh to ESI Hospital. It is further recorded in Ex.PW-1/A that deceased has received injury on the head but blood had not oozed out. He was declared brought dead. However, when Mithlesh appeared in the Court as

¶47

¶48

PW-1, he has deposed that he heard the noise of quarrel in the gallery when he was proceeding towards the place from where the noise was coming. Accused met them on the way and told that he has given iron rod blow on the head of Inderjeet Singh. He has fallen in drain. According to the averments contained in Ex.PW-1/A, he had seen accused giving beatings to Inderjeet Singh. However, in his statement as PW-1 Mithlesh has deposed that when they were going towards the place from where the noise was coming accused met them and told that he has given blow of iron rod on the head of Inderjeet Singh. PW-10 Ajay Kumar has deposed that at about 2.45 P.M. accused Balbir Singh came inside the workshop. He was carrying iron rod and deposed that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh with the rod. He has not seen the accused giving beatings to deceased. He went inside the workshop and told about it to Naveen and Mithlesh. According to PW-1 Mithlesh, accused met him on the way and told that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh. However, PW-10 Ajay Kumar has deposed that accused has entered the workshop carrying iron rod and narrated that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh. Thereafter, he went inside the workshop and told about it to Naveen and Mithlesh. Neither PW-1 Mithlesh nor PW-10 Ajay Kumar has seen the accused giving beatings to Inderjeet Singh. There are

¶49

¶50

major contradictors in the statements made by Mithlesh in Ex.PW-1/A and when he appeared in the court as PW-1 and in the statement of PW-10 Ajay Kumar. According to PW-1 Mithlesh, accused has told him that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh. However, PW-10 Ajay Kumar has deposed that he told Mithlesh and Naveen that accused has told him that he has given beatings to Inderjeet Singh.

¶51

According to the prosecution case, accused himself has disclosed to PW-1 Mithilesh and PW-10 Ajay Kumar that he has given beatings to deceased Inderjeet Singh. In view of inherent contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Mithilesh and PW-10 Ajay Kumar and the contents of Ext. PW-1/A, statement made by the accused cannot be treated as extra-judicial confession. The prosecution has not attributed motive to the accused in killing deceased Inderjeet Singh except a bald statement of PW-1 Mithilesh that the accused while in police custody has disclosed to him that the deceased used to misbehave with the wife of the accused and he had been pressing him to do work quickly in the factory. The statement made before the police is not admissible. Moreover, PW-3 Sunil Kumar in his cross-examination has deposed that if there is any complaint regarding the work of a particular worker or any other complaint against a worker then only

¶52

¶53

Incharge of the section attends the complaint and enquires about it. Accused had joined the factory on 17.1.2011 and the deceased had joined the factory on 1.1.2011. The incident is dated 26.1.2011. It is not the case of the prosecution that deceased was supervisor of the accused or his wife. They were only co-workers. The relations could not aggravate to the situation that accused would have killed Inderjeet Singh only on the ground that deceased used to misbehave with his wife and had been pressing to work quickly in the factory. Moreover, when accused had joined the factory on 17.1.2011 and the deceased had joined the factory on 1.1.2011. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove whether the accused’s wife was working in the factory or not. So far as the recovery of rod is concerned, it was from the open drain. Blood was not detected on it.

¶54

Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed murder of deceased Inderjeet Singh. The circumstances noticed by us hereinabove creates reasonable doubt in the version of prosecution.

¶55

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.2.2013 and order dated 21.2.2013 rendered in Sessions Trial No.11-S/7 of

¶56

¶57

2011 are set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶58

The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.

¶59

(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. (Justice Sureshwar Thakur), Judge. 4.8. 2014 awasthi

Balbir Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs H.P.S.E.B

Kuldeep Kumar @D.C. Vs State of Hp

Jeet Ram Vs State

Deep Ram Vs State of Hp

Chaman Lal Vs State of H.P

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Hpseb Ltd.