High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant for murdering his wife and two minor sons. The court held the case falls under rarest of rare cases.
Death sentence confirmed; criminal appeal dismissed; murder reference accepted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -1- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Tarsem Singh APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Punjab
RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE JUSTICE (MRS.) DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:Shri D.K.Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S.Gill, Additional A.G. Punjab.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
Murder Reference No.8 of 2008 has been forwarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Tarsem Singh son of Piara Singh vide his judgment dated 19.9.2008. We will be deciding Murder Reference No.8 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 by a common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 19.9.2008 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby he convicted and sentenced to death Tarsem Singh son of Piara Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 2 years. Tarsem was further
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -2- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
convicted under Section 436 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for one year.
The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of of Piare Lal Ex.PB, given to Sarabjit Singh SI/SHO Police Station Lambra on 22.9.2007. Piare Lal stated that he is a labourer. His daughter Rajwinder Kaur wife of Tarsem Singh resides at Village Khambra. She had been married to Tarsem Singh about 12 years back. He was present at his house at about 11 o'clock in the night at Village Pandori Masharkti (District Jalandhar) when he received a telephonic message from Village Khambra that a gas cylinder had burst in the house of his son-in-law Tarsem Singh in which Tarsem Singh was injured and his daughter Rajwinder Kaur and grand sons Harwinder Singh aged 8 years and Gurvinder Singh aged 10 years had died. This occurrence took place on 21.9.2007 at about 10 o'clock. Piare Lal along with his wife and nephew Makhan Singh son of Gurdev Singh reached Khambra. He saw the place where the occurrence had taken place, but he was not convinced and was sure that his son-in-law Tarsem Singh had killed his daughter and grand-sons by first inflicting injuries on them and thereafter he opened the cylinder and lit the fire. The cause of grudge was that Tarsem Singh used to beat his wife and was demanding money from her. On 17.9.2007, Tarsem Singh had given beating to his daughter. Piare Singh along with his wife and son-in-law Resham Singh went to Village Khambra to persuade Tarsem Singh not to indulge in such like acts. On that day, Tarsem Singh had threatened that he would kill everyone one day. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PB/2 was recorded on 22.9.2007 at 11.30 a.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Jalandhar on the same day at 3.15 p.m.
The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Balwinder Singh PW-1, Piare Lal PW-2, Resham Singh PW-3, Hardev Singh
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -3- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
PW-4, Balbir Singh PW-5, Satnam Singh PW-6, Jagir Singh PW-7, Baldish Singh PW-8, Dr.Aman Sood PW-9 and Sarabjit Singh PW-10.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that taking the seat of injuries into consideration as spelt out by Dr.Aman Sood PW-9, it is clear that the roof of the house fell on the head of deceased Rajwinder Kaur, Harwinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh who were sleeping in the room after the cylinder burst. The seat of injuries on the heads of the deceased are identical. Injuries cannot be so identical if inflicted by the Ghotna (a round wooden batton) on the person of the deceased. The deceased would have tried to save themselves and if they were being attacked by the appellant, the injuries with the Ghotna would have struck at different places of the body and then on the head of the deceased. Since the deceased were sleeping, some heavy piece of wood (Shehteer like) fell on the head of the deceased and this is what has caused the death. It was an accident which has now been made into a murder.
There is no motive for the commission of the offence. If the appellant did have a fight for the demand of money, it was with his wife and not with his two minor children. The children were as dear to the appellant, as children are dear to any father. If he had wanted to commit the murder, it would have been only his wife and there was no need to hit the children.
The last seen evidence as propounded by Balbir Singh PW-5 does not inspire confidence. Seeing the deceased in a perplexed condition without a turban and on coming to know that the appellant had killed his wife and sons, strangely he did not inform the police. The police recorded the statement of Piare Lal PW-2 after they had received a Ruqa from the hospital. He did not try to apprehend the appellant. Appellant did not have any occasion to enter the house and then put the Ghotna Ex.MO/3 back in the house.
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -4- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
The extra-judicial confession allegedly made before Hardev Singh Ex-Sarpanch, PW-4, does not inspire confidence. This witness before whom the extra-judicial confession was made, did not think it proper to either take the appellant to the police, or he himself to go to the police to inform them about the occurrence. He allegedly told the appellant that he was busy in his own work and when he comes back, he would look into the matter.
The Ghotna, Ex.MO/3, was though blood-stained as per the F.S.L. report Ex.PZ, but this fact cannot be overlooked that it was sent to the F.S.L. on 19.10.2007 after a gap of one month. Appellant was arrested on 22.9.2007 and the Ghotna was allegedly recovered on the day of occurrence. The finger prints of the appellant should have been taken from the Ghotna so that it could be proved that appellant is the one who used it. The chain of events does not link the appellant with the crime.
Learned counsel has further argued that the case of the appellant does not fall in the rarest of the rare cases. Appellant did not abscond. He did not make any attempt to run away, but was arrested from near the canteen of the hospital. If he had committed the murder, he would not have been roaming near the hospital, but would have run away. Appellant did not have any quarrel with his little children, nowhere has it been stated that ever in the last 12 years, he did not like his children or he had even slapped them once. The evidence of the prosecution is that he quarreled with his wife. If he had quarreled with his wife, then it was the wife only who would have been his victim, and not the children. The children were dear to him. There is no evidence coming from the side of the prosecution that appellant had any fight with his wife before the occurrence during the last 12 years of his marriage.
Learned counsel for the State has argued, that injuries inflicted on the
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -5- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
person of the deceased are all on the head region. Appellant after striking the deceased, first his wife and then the children on the heads with the Ghotna, set the gas cylinder ablaze which caused a blast and in the process the roof of the house fell down.
Dr.Aman Sood PW-9 has stated in his post-mortem report that fire injuries on the persons of the deceased are post-mortem in nature. Death was due to the injuries inflicted on the heads of the deceased. Death was within a few minutes.
Balbir Singh PW-5 who tried to help the appellant, was asked to go out and mind his own business. If the appellant had not committed the murder, the first thing he would have done was to ask for help from his neighbours and ask his neighbours like Balbir Singh PW-5, to immediately call the police and also help him in dousing the flames. Balbir Singh PW-5 is an independent witness, but instead he was asked to keep away.
The extra-judicial confession made to Hardev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Village Khambra PW-4 inspires confidence. Hardev Singh PW-4 is a person who knows the police and has excess to the police. Appellant and Hardev Singh PW-4 are from the same village. After committing the heinous crime, appellant wanted to unburden himself. He also wanted to have himself produced before the police so that he is not tortured.
If it was a case of accident, then the appellant would have been the first one to call the police and Fire Brigade to put off the fire, but it was Balbir Singh PW-5 who called the Fire Brigade and the police came when the Ruqa reached them from the Civil Hospital informing them of the death of Rajwinder Kaur, Harvinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh.
Learned counsel for the State has further argued that the case falls
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -6- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
within the ambit of rarest of the rare cases. Not only has the appellant murdered his wife, but his two minor sons Harvinder Singh aged 8 years and Gurvinder Singh aged 10 years also. He did not have any quarrel with the little children. They were his own blood. He hit the children so hard on the head with the Ghotna that with one blow, death came to them. If the appellant had not committed the murder of the three and it was a case of an accident, appellant would have been so devastated, that the neighbours would have stood up for him, but instead, it is the neighbours who are deposing against him for the heinous crime he has committed. It is a cold blooded murder and the concession of life imprisonment should not be given to the appellant. Death is the proper answer to persons like the appellant.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
Marriage of appellant with Rajwinder Kaur had taken place about 12 years before the occurrence. Two sons were born to them out of this wedlock. Deceased Harvinder Singh was aged 8 years and Gurvinder Singh was aged 10 years. Piare Lal PW-2 along with his son-in-law Resham Singh PW-3 went to the house of the appellant in Village Khambra(District Jalandhar) on 17.9.2007 to ask the appellant to stop beating his daughter Rajwinder Kaur and stop demanding money as he was not in a position to fulfill his demand. Appellant replied to them that he would kill all of them one day. The present occurrence took place on 21.9.2007 at about 10 p.m. exactly 4 days after the appellant threatened to kill everyone in his house.
Balbir Singh PW-5 is an independent witness and a neighbour. In his testimony before the Court, he has stated that on 21.9.2007 at 10 p.m. he was present in his house which is on the back side of the house of the appellant. He saw a fire and then heard a loud explosion. He saw the appellant going out of his
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -7- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
house. When the appellant came out of the house he saw the appellant holding a Ghotna. Balbir Singh PW-5 went to the house of the appellant to ask him as to what had happened. Appellant stated that he had killed his wife and children on account of some dispute with them. Balbir Singh PW-5 then gave a telephone call to the Fire Brigade authorities, who came and doused out the fire. Balbir Singh PW-5 has further stated that he along with his family members raised a hue and cry and about 100 persons from the locality collected there within 10 minutes. From the statement of this witness, it shows that appellant did not ask for any help, but instead made a confession before Balbir Singh PW-5. If it was a case of accident, it is not Balbir Singh PW-5 who would have shouted for help, but the appellant himself would have shouted for help from the neighbourhood and he along with the people of the village would have tried to put out the fire. No one from the locality came forward to put out the fire by using a bucket or other utensils, since they saw the appellant in a bad mood, who had just killed his wife and little children. Thus, they wanted to keep away.
Statement of Balbir Singh PW-5 gets corroboration from the statement of Piare Lal PW-2 and Hardev Singh Ex-Sarpanch of Village Khambra, PW-4. Hardev Singh has stated that on 22.9.2007 at about 9 a.m. he was present at Bus Stand, Khambra. Appellant met him and at that time he was not having a turban on his head. He confessed to Hardev Singh PW-4 that he had murdered his wife and children and Hardev Singh should save him. He further stated that he had struck a Ghotna on the head of the deceased. This witness is an Ex-Sarpanch of the village. His statement inspires confidence. He has excess to the police as in the villages it is the Sarpanch and the Ex-Sarpanch who are the leaders of the village and people go to them for help.
Similarly, Piare Lal PW-2 in his testimony before the Court has
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -8- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
reiterated what he stated in the F.I.R. Ex.PB/2. His examination-in-chief has gone unchallenged. Only one question was put to him in cross-examination and thereafter strangely the defence counsel did not think it proper to go any further for the reasons best known to him.
The medical evidence as propounded by Dr.Aman Sood PW-9 corroborates the ocular account. Dr.Aman Sood PW-9 performed the post-mortem on the dead-body of Rajwinder Kaur wife of Tarsem Singh and found the following injuries on his person :-
It has further been stated in his testimony as under :-
Dr.Aman Sood PW-4 conducted the post-mortem examination on the
dead-body of Harvinder Singh and found the following injuries on his person :-
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -9- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
On dissection underlying bone was fractured. A clotted blood of 120 cc over extra dural space. A sub dural haematoma of 70 cc was present. Singing of scalp hair was present. Wound was blackened and smeared with dust.
The case of death being as under :-
“Injury over head was ante-mortem in nature. Burns and blast injury were post-mortem in nature. The cause of death in this case was due to head injury, sub dural haematoma which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.”
Dr.Aman Sood PW-4 further conducted post-mortem on the dead-
body of Gurvinder Singh and found the following injuries on his person :-
On dissection underlying bone was fractured. An extra dural haematoma of 80 cc was present. Sub dural haematoma of 70 cc was also present.
The cause of death was stated as under :-
“Injury over head was ante-mortem in nature. Burns and blast injury were post-mortem in nature. The cause of death in this case was due to head injury, sub dural haematoma which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.”
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -10- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
It comes out very clearly from the medical evidence that the Ghotna blows were given on the head of the deceased and the doctor has opined that the probable time between injury and death was a few minutes. Further, the doctor has opined as enumerated by underlining above, that the burns were post-mortem in nature. It clearly spells out that first the deceased were murdered with Ghotna Ex.MO/3 and thereafter the appellant tried to build up a story by bursting a gas cylinder and showing that the deceased had been burnt.
The Investigating Officer Sarabjit Singh PW-10 took into possession the gas cylinder Ex.PD and Ghotna Ex.MO/3 from the house of the deceased. The inquest of the deceased was also done and reports Ex.PN,PO and PD were prepared on 22.9.2007. The F.S.L. report Ex.PZ found human blood on the Ghotna Ex.MO/3.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant has stated as
under :-
“It was AN accidental fire on account of bursting of gas cylinder, which resulted in the burns to the deceased and ultimately falling of the roof over the deceased, who were inside the room. The allegations of deceased being hit by round wooden batton is absolutely wrong. I am innocent.”
If it was a case of accident, appellant would have been the first one to call for help, but instead of crying for help, as discussed above, he did not let anyone come near his house, nor did he try to extinguish the fire with the help of about 100 odd persons standing near his house, as it has come in the evidence of the prosecution evidence.
The argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -11- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
that injuries are identical and a heavy piece of wood must have fallen from the roof, when the gas cylinder burst, does not cut much ice. If a heavy piece of wood had fallen, then the heads of the deceased would not have been injured in such a way, but would have got completely crushed, because on the roof there are not only big pieeces of woods (Shteers) but small pieces of wood (Balas) also and tiles to keep the roof intact. On top of the tiles is mud. No wooden log has been recovered. Thus, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of force.
The motive for the commission of the offence has been spelt out clearly by Piare Lal PW-2 and Resham Singh PW-3, that on 17.9.2007 they had come to the house of the appellant and instead of relenting, appellant had threatened that he is going to finish off his whole family. Appellant was constantly demanding money and also beating his wife as Piare Lal PW-2 could not afford to give money to his daughter, this heinous crime was committed.
There was no need to take the finger prints of the Ghotna, as they would not have been of much value because already the Investigating Officer had enough evidence in the form of Ghotna Ex.MO/3 being blood stained, and had human blood as per the F.S.L. report Ex.PZ.
Appellant has miserably failed in trying to make out a case of accident.
The case of the appellant falls within the ambit of rarest of the rare cases. He has not only brutally killed his own wife, but also two helpless minor children Harvinder Singh aged 8 years and Gurvinder Singh aged 10 years, who had not done any harm to him. If he had any differences with his wife, as usually there are in the households, the little children were not at fault. Appellant acted brutally in a merciless manner by not only putting to death his wife Rajwinder
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2008 and -12- Murder Reference No.8 of 2008
Kaur by hitting the Ghotna Ex.MO/3 (a round wooden batton) on her head, but also smashing the heads of his minor children Harvinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh. Such like persons do not deserve any mercy. Appellant has tried to make out a case of accident, but with the evidence already discussed as above, it is clear that he did not make any effort to do any thing to save the lives of his wife and two children. He, in fact, did not allow others like Balbir Singh PW-5 to intervene or the other persons from the neighbourhood who were standing there. It is a clear case of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
With the above discussion and observations, we confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Conviction and sentence of the appellant shall remain intact.
The death sentence shall be subject to the period of limitation as provided for filing of a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Criminal appeal is dismissed and the Murder Reference is accepted.
( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE
( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) March 24, 2009 JUDGE GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case falls within the rarer of rare cases attracting the death penalty.
Whether the injury pattern and post-mortem evidence support the prosecution's theory of murder over an accident.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tarsem Singh
State of Punjab
Mehtab S.Gill
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
