Partly allowed

Dina Ram v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012CRA-D/109/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed appeal of Hirdey Parshad, acquitting him of murder and conspiracy due to lack of substantive evidence beyond co-accused confession. Dismissed Dina Ram's appeal, confirming murder but quashing conspiracy charges.

What did the court decide?

Hirdey Parshad acquitted of all charges; Dina Ram acquitted of conspiracy charges but convicted of murder and robbery.

Dina Ram Vs State of Pb. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: February 16, 2012

¶6

DINA RAM ...APPELLANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

¶9

2. Crl.A. No.1299-SB of 2003

¶10

HIRDEY PARSHAD ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SARON. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes

¶16

PRESENT: MR. SANJEEV MANHAS, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT IN CRL.A. NO.109-DB OF 2007.

¶17

MR. VISHAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT IN CRL.A. NO.1299-SB OF 2003

¶18

MS. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB.

¶19

M. JEYAPAUL, J.

¶20

Hirdey Parshad was convicted alongwith other accused, namely, Dharminder, Jai Kishore, Sarwan Ram for the offences under Section 460, 397, 120-B and 148 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court, Hirdey Parshad preferred Crl.A. No.1299-SB of 2003. During the course of trial of the very

¶21

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶22

-2-

¶23

same case, accused Dina Ram absconded and was later declared as Proclaimed Offender. After his arrest he faced the continuation of trial separately and received a verdict of conviction by the trial Court later for the offences under Section 460, 396, 120-B and 148 IPC. He has preferred separately Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007.

¶24

The brief case of the prosecution reads as under:a) Inderpal Singh (since deceased) alongwith his wife Paramjit Kaur (since deceased), daughter Davinder Kaur (since deceased), son Sharanjit Singh (PW11) and another son Baljit Singh was residing on the first floor of House No.678, Street No.5, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Inderpal Singh was running a Nut factory on the ground floor of the said house. Accused Dharminder, Jai Kishore, Hirdey Parshad, Swaran Ram and Dina Ram were employed as labourers in the said factory by Inderpal Singh. On 26.3.1996, at about 4.45 P.M. PW12 Jaspal Singh, younger brother of Inderpal Singh received a telephonic call that the house-cum-factory of Inderpal Singh was found locked since morning. PW12 came down to the factory premises where Inder Singh Chawla was also present. They got opened the lock of the outer gate and entered into the factory of Inderpal Singh. The telephone wires were found snapped. The furniture was lying scattered. The dead bodies of Inderpal Singh and Davinder Kaur were lying on the back side of the room. The dead body of Paramjit Kaur was lying in the adjoining room. When they entered into the first floor of the house, they found that household articles were scattered in the room. A Godrej Almirah was lying open. PW12 reported the matter to the police alleging that the murder was committed by the factory workers, accused Surender,

¶25

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶26

-3-

¶27

Dharmender, Jai Kishore and Swaran Ram.

¶28

b) On the statement Ex.PF/1 of PW12, a formal First Information Report was registered. PW13 Inspector Mohinder Singh Bedi took up the case for investigation. He visited the scene of crime, prepared the inquest report. He also drew site plan. PW17 Dr. R.N.Singla, Civil Surgeon has spoken to the post mortem examination of deceased Inderpal Singh, Davinder Kaur and Paramjit Kaur by Dr.Kulwant Singh under his direction. The post mortem certificates Ex.P17/A, Ex.P17/B and Ex.P17/C would disclose that all the three deceased have been done to death by causing injuries to their vital organs.

¶29

c) On 24.5.1996, accused Jai Kishore, Dharminder Singh and Hirdey Parshad were arrested.

¶30

d) Accused Swaran Ram was arrested on 28.5.1996. He made a disclosure statement based on which gold ornaments were recovered. Accused Dina Ram was arrested on 17.5.1996. He suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PM) before PW4 ASI Sukhwinder Singh in the presence of PW12 Jaspal Singh and ASI Bakshshish Singh based on which a gold ring bearing initials 'PJ' near the wall of the Government Warehouse was recovered.

¶31

The trial Court having relied upon the circumstantial evidence projected by the prosecution recorded conviction as against these accusedappellants also.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Dina Ram would submit that the name of Dina Ram was not referred to in the First Information Report lodged by PW12. The finger prints lifted from the scene

¶33

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶34

-4-

¶35

of occurrence did not match with the finger prints of accused Dina Ram. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by co-accused Swaran Ram before PW2 Jasbir Singh son of Gurbachan Singh would not be admissible as against the accused Dina Ram. The evidence of PW1 Jasbir Singh, father of deceased Inderpal Singh and the evidence of PW3 Gurbax Singh in whose house the accused alleged stayed as tenants do not appear to be natural. No independent witness was associated for the recovery of the gold ring of deceased Paramjit Kaur. The blood stained dress of accused Dina Ram was not recovered. Therefore, it is his submission that accused Dina Ram is entitled to acquittal.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for accused Hirdey Parshad would submit that the name of accused Hirdey Parshad did not find a place in the First Information Report. He had not suffered any disclosure statement. No recovery was effected at the instance of co-accused Hirdey Parshad. The extra judicial confession given by accused Swaran Ram before PW2 cannot be a sole basis for convicting accused Hirdey Parshad. The only piece of evidence available on record through the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by co-accused Swaran Ram was that accused-appellant Hirdey Parshad gave a piece of advice to the other accused to adopt some means to loot the house of deceased Inderpal Singh. Such an advice cannot be construed as a criminal conspiracy hatched by accused Hirdey Parshad alongwith other accused. Therefore, it is submitted that accused Hirdey Parshad is also entitled to acquittal.

¶37

We heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the State supporting the verdict of conviction recorded by the trial Court

¶38

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶39

-5-

¶40

as against these two accused-appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the circumstantial evidence adduced before the trial Court is sufficient to clamp these two accused with the charges framed as against them.

¶41

The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution as there was no ocular testimony for the ghastly triple murder committed during day time. The Court has to find whether the chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution unerringly points to the guilt of the accused.

¶42

Let us now take up the appeal preferred by accused Hirdey Parshad. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for accused Hirdey Parshad, he had not suffered any disclosure statement. No recovery of material object was made at his instance.

¶43

Accused Swaran Ram has allegedly given extra-judicial confession before PW2 Jasbir Singh son of Gurbachan Singh. In the said extra-judicial confession, co-accused Swaran Ram having implicated himself has stated that as per evidence of PW2, accused Hirdey Parshad gave a piece of advice to adopt some means to loot the house of the deceased. It is to be noted that no piece of advice was given by accused Hirdey Parshad to commit triple murder. Even otherwise, it is highly doubtful that such a piece of advice would fall under the parameters of criminal conspiracy defined under Section 120-A IPC to attract the offence under Section 120-B IPC.

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar , AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1184 has held as follows:-

¶45

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶46

-6-

¶47

“ It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions contained in S.30, the confession has not doubt to be regarded as amounting to evidence in a general way. Because whatever is considered by the Court is evidence; circumstances which are consider by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of provisions of S.30, the fact remains that is not evidence as defined by S.3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person; the court cannot start with the confession of co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. ”

¶48

Even if we construe that such a piece of advice given by accused Hirdey Parshad to the other accused would fall under the definition of criminal conspiracy as adumbrated under Section 120-A IPC, the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by co-accused to PW2 as to the role of accused-appellant Hirdey Parshad would, at best, be used as a corroborative stuff and not as a substantive evidence to base conviction. In other words, the prosecution is bound to let-in some quality evidence to indicate the involvement of accused-appellant Hirdey Parshad and

¶49

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶50

-7-

¶51

thereupon such a corroborative stuff emanated through the mouth of coaccused by way of extra-judicial confession could be banked upon by the trial Court.

¶52

In the instant case, it is found that the prosecution has completely relied upon the only alleged extra-judicial confession incriminating the accused-appellant. The prosecution has bent upon to project such an extra-judicial confession given by co-accused Swaran Ram as a substantive evidence to convict accused-appellant Hirdey Parshad. The above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court deals a death blow to such an endeavour made by the prosecution.

¶53

We find that virtually there is no legal evidence available on record to convict accused-appellant Hirdey Parshad. Therefore, we have no hesitation to upset the judgement of conviction recorded by the trial Court as against accused-appellant Hirdey Parshad.

¶54

Let us now take up the appeal preferred by accused-appellant Dina Ram. It is true that name of accused Dina Ram was not referred in the FIR, but the evidence of PW1 Jasbir Singh, in whose house accused Dina Ram also stayed alongwith the other accused as tenant, would go to show that Dina Ram was one of the labourers employed by Inderpal Singh (deceased) alongwith the other accused in the Nut factory he was carrying on in the downstairs of his house.

¶55

PW3 Gurbax Singh was the father of deceased Inderpal Singh. He has categorically deposed that on 25.3.1996, when he arrived at the factory of his son Inderpal Singh, he found the accused Dina Ram alongwith other accused locking the factory premises. He had noted some blood stains

¶56

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶57

-8-

¶58

on the clothes of accused Dina Ram and other co-accused. It is quite natural that blood stains may be found on the dress of a factory worker as such a worker would normally come in contact with machines. No wonder that PW3 chose not to further probe into the detection of blood stains on the dresses of accused Dina Ram and other accused. It has been established through the evidence of Gurbax Singh that accused Dina Ram and other accused were found with bloodstains immediately after the occurrence unfolded in the house of Inderpal Singh.

¶59

PW1 Jasbir Singh, landlord of accused Dina Ram and others has also deposed that accused Dina Ram alongwith other co-accused came to his premises with blood stained clothes. When he enquired, the accused replied promptly that while they were working on the machine, they sustained same blood stains. At any rate, they admitted that there was some dispute with Inderpal Singh. PW1 has found all the accused emerging out of the house in their occupation with baggage. The evidence of PW1 Jasbir Singh also lends corroboration to the fact that accused Dina Ram and other accused were found with blood stained clothes. It is also made clear through the evidence of PW1 that the accused were found in a hurry to shift their luggage from the premises of PW1.

¶60

PW2 Jasbir Singh has also deposed that accused Dina Ram and other accused confessed the crime before him and made a request to produce them before the police. The accused also confessed that in order to loot cash amount of Inderpal Singh, the crime was committed. There is no reason to reject the extra-judicial confession given by accused-appellant Dina Ram before PW2.

¶61

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶62

-9-

¶63

Accused-appellant Dina Ram also suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PM) before PW14 Sukhwinder Singh in the presence of PW12 Jaspal Singh and ASI Bakhshish Singh. Based on the disclosure statement he had led the police party and got recovered a gold ring with the inscription 'PJ' identified as a ring of the deceased Paramjit Kaur by PW12. The recovery of the above material object establishes the case that accused Dina Ram also shared the booty after commission of the triple murder alongwith the other accused.

¶64

It is true that the the finger prints lifted from the scene of occurrence did not tally with the finger prints of Dina Ram. Quite probably, the accused-appellant would not have touched any of the polished objects in the room of the house of deceased Inderpal Singh. Further, non-association of any other independent witness also would not go to the root of the case, inasmuch as, the evidence of PW14 ASI Sukhdev Singh and PW12 Jaspal Singh about the disclosure statement given by accused-appellant Dina Ram which led to the recovery of ring of the deceased Paramjit Kaur inspires confidence. We find that the trial Court has rightly convicted accusedappellant Dina Ram under Section 460 and 396 IPC.

¶65

It has been established that accused Hirdey Parshad had not participated in the crime alleged in this case. The prosecution has projected Hirdey Parshad as a material source of the offence under Section 120-B IPC. On his acquittal, the number of accused participated in the offence is reduced to only four, therefore, the offence under Section 120-B and 148 IPC are not attracted.

¶66

In view of the above, the judgement of conviction and order of

¶67

Crl.A. No.109-DB of 2007

¶68

-10-

¶69

sentence passed by the trial Court qua accused Hirdey Parshad for offence under Section 460, 396, 120-B and 148 IPC is set aside. He is acquitted the aforesaid charges. The bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. The appeal filed by accused Hirdey Parshad stands allowed.

¶70

Accused Dina Ram is acquitted of the charges under Section 120-B and 148 IPC. But the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as against accused Dina Ram for the offences under Section 460 and 396 IPC are confirmed.

¶71

With the above modification in the matter of conviction and sentence, the appeal preferred by accused Dina Ram is dismissed.

¶72

(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE

¶73

February 16, 2012 ( S.S. SARON ) Gulati JUDGE

Dina Ram v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dina Ram v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ram Mehto and Ors. Vs Arun Gupta etc. and Ors.

Chand Kaur Vs Pankaj Nain and Ors.

Fci Workers Union Vs Fci & Ors.

Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Rattan etc. Vs F.C.I.Etc.

Shallu Kalra and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others