Allowed

Bachi Devi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2012CRA-D/7/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court acquitted two appellants charged with murder under IPC 302 and 34. The Court set aside the trial court's conviction, finding that contradictory witness statements, lack of direct evidence of the crime, and weak motive entitled the appellants to benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order of sentence set aside; appellants acquitted of charges and set at liberty.

Bachi Devi Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶5

Bachi Devi w/o Ram Swarth, r/o Street No. 10, Mohalla Kabir Nagar, Daba Police Station, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. ........Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab .........Respondent

¶8

AND

¶9

CRA No. D-910-DB of 2008 Decided on:- September 21, 2012

¶10

Ram Swarth, s/o Angad Kumar, r/o Street No. 10, Mohalla Kabir Nagar, Daba Police Station, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana.

¶11

........Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Punjab .........Respondent

¶14

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH

¶16

Present Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate, for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. D-7-DB of 2009. Ms. Gurjit Kaur, Advocate for appellant in Crl. Appeal No. D-910-DB of 2008.

¶17

Mr.U.S.Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent.

¶18

S.P.BANGARH, J

¶19

Since both the appeals i.e CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009, titled Bachi Devi vs. State of Punjab and CRA No.D-910-DB of 2008, titled Ram

¶20

¶21

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶22

Swarth v. State of Punjab, have arisen from the common impugned judgment and order, these shall be decided by this common judgment.

¶23

The appellants in both the appeals have assailed the judgment and order dated 21.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Session Case No. 111 of 21.02.2006, RBT No. 53 of 27.02.2006, emanating from FIR No.180 dated 08.09.2006, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) of Police Station, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, whereby, the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each.

¶24

Case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2006, Surjit Singh, SI was present at Gill Chowk, Ludhiana alongwith police party in connection with routine patrol duty, where Ramji Dass approached him and made statement Ex.PA to the effect that he was married with Sunita Devi in the year 1996 and has two sons. He had let out one room of his house to Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No.D-910-DB of 2008) about three years ago, who resides, therein, alongwith his wife Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009). About 3/4 months prior, his wife arranged loan for Ram Swarth appellant to the tune of `3,000/- from her neighbour Smt. Madhu for purchase of motorcycle. Smt. Madhu started compelling his wife for refund of loan amount. She asked the appellants to reimburse the loan amount, but they procrastinated the matter on one pretext or the other.

¶25

On 07.09.2006, at about 08;00 a.m, his wife demanded refund of loan amount from Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No.D-910-DB of 2008), who lost temper and started giving threats to kill her by stating that they were people of Bihar and she by raising demands for refund of loan in the presence of people living in the vicinity, has insulted them. At that time, he

¶26

¶27

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶28

(complainant) and his neighbour Shashi Bhushan son of Hans Raj were also standing in the street in front of the house. In the meantime, Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) also reached there and made an attempt to bite the wife of the complainant. However, complainant and Shashi Bhushan saved Sunita Devi and he (complainant) left his house for place of his job.

¶29

He (complainant) visited his house for taking lunch at about 12:30 p.m and found Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No.D-910-DB of 2008) pressing the neck of his wife by placing a chunni and he also found that the hands of his wife were caught by Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D- 7-DB of 2009) and she had died. Appellants while committing the crime had raised the volume of the deck. Both the appellants then fled away and entered in their adjoining room. When he (complainant) made attempt to raise an alarm, he was threatened by the appellants, who said that in case, he raised cries and reported the matter to the police, he and his children will be done to death. Being scared, he did not disclose the truth to the police. In his statement Ex.PA dated 07.09.2006 recorded by Surjit Singh, SI, complainant demanded action against the appellants for killing his 28/29 years old wife by strangulating her neck with her chunni.

¶30

Investigating Officer Surjit Singh, SI made his endorsement Ex.PY at about 02:30 p.m on the statement Ex.PA and sent the same to the Police Station Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, where formal FIR Ex.PW6/A was recorded. He took into custody the corpse of deceased and prepared inquest report Ex.PW6/D and sent the same to the mortuary for autopsy. After autopsy, he obtained copy of autopsy report Ex.PW8/A and delivered the corpse for funeral. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PW6/B of the place of occurrence and later he got prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PW7/A. He also took into possession the chunni of the deceased and her clothes vide recovery memos Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW1/A respectively,

¶31

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009 4

¶32

after preparing separate parcels, thereof, which were sealed by him with his seal bearing impression 'SS'. On 10.09.2006, Surjit Singh, SI arrested the appellants vide memos Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/E respectively.

¶33

After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, instituted police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears that the appellants have committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶34

On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial, which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, where charge under Section 302 IPC against both the appellants was framed, whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.

¶35

At the trial, prosecution examined Dalbir Singh ASI as PW1, Ramji Dass complainant as PW2, Shashi Bhushan son of Hans Raj as PW3, Kashmiri Lal as PW4, Karamjit Singh, HC as PW5, Surjit Singh, SI as PW6, Ram Sharan, HC as PW7 and Dr.R.K.Sharma as PW8 and closed the evidence.

¶36

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, they denied the allegations of prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. They gave their own version that a false case was registered against them. They have not committed the murder of Sunita Devi. Indeed, she committed suicide and police also filed report under Section 174 Cr.P.C for the commission of suicide by her and the complainant did not want to proceed against any one. They further stated that police re-investigated

¶37

¶38

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶39

the case and involved them in this case. Appellants were called upon to enter in defence and they examined Pawan Kumar as DW1 and Gurdial Singh, HC as DW2 and closed the defence evidence, later.

¶40

After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants vide impugned judgment and order of sentence, as described in the second paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved, thereagainst, appellants, who were accused before the learned trial Court, have come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for acquittal of the charge, framed against them.

¶41

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and perused the record of the learned trial Court with their assistance.

¶42

First of all, it is to be seen what the prosecution witnesses deposed against the appellants.

¶43

PW1 Dalbir Singh, ASI testified that on 08.09.2006, when he was posted as Incharge Police Post, Daba, Police Station Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, he was present at Gill Chowk, Ludhiana with police party headed by Surjit Singh, SI, where latter recorded the statement of Ramji Dass and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case and he directed him to get conducted autopsy on the corpse of Sunita Devi which was got conducted and after autopsy, he handed over clothes of deceased to Surjit Singh, SI, who seized those vide memo Ex.PW1/A and his statement was recorded.

¶44

PW2 Ramji Dass testified that he had let out one room to appellants and about three months prior to the occurrence, his wife Sunita Devi had got obtained loan of `3,000/- to Ram Swarth appellant from their neighbour Madhu for purchase of motorcycle and when his wife demanded back the said loan amount from Ram Swarth appellant, the latter started procrastinating the matter on one pretext or the other and that on

¶45

¶46

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶47

07.09.2006 at about 08:00 a.m, when his wife demanded back loan amount from Ram Swarth appellant, the latter got angry and extended threats to kill her in his presence, as also, in the presence of Shashi Bhushan.

¶48

PW2 Ramji Dass further testified that Ram Swarth appellant felt insulted on account of demand of reimbursement of the loan and he said that he will not spare his wife Sunita Devi, and at about 12:30 p.m, when he came to his house for lunch, then in the room, he saw Ram Swarth appellant pressing the neck of his wife Sunita Devi, while Bachi Devi appellant had caught hold her arms and his wife Sunita Devi was dead and, thereafter, both the appellants instantly went to their room and when he (PW2) raised alarm, they threatened to kill him, as also, his children, if he informed the police or raised alarm and due to this reason, he did not disclose the real facts to the police. He further testified that he made statement Ex.PA before the police, which was read over and explained to him and he signed the same in english.

¶49

PW3 Shashi Bhushan also testified that Ramji Dass resides in front of his house and was in a private job and he had let out one room to appellants, where both used to reside and that on 07.09.2006, Ram Swarth appellant had arguments with Sunita Devi and his wife Bachi Devi appellant had also arguments with Sunita Devi and Ramji Dass dissuaded them and Ram Swarth appellant stated that Sunita Devi (since deceased) had insulted him in the mohalla by asking for refund of the loan and he is also a Bihari and shall not spare her and will kill her. He further stated that both the appellants started giving beatings to Sunita Devi and this matter was compromised and Ramji Dass joined his duty and he (PW3) also went to his shop and in the lunch time, he learnt that Sunita Devi had died and when he inquired about his death, Ramji Dass said that he does not want to say anything, as he was afraid and in the evening, he and the relatives

¶50

¶51

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶52

of Ramji Dass asked latter to disclose true fact and then he disclosed that when he came to take lunch, he saw that Bachi Devi had caught hold his wife from her arms and Ram Swarth appellant was tightening her neck with chunni and sequely, she died and his statement was recorded.

¶53

PW4 Kashmiri Lal, HC testified that in the year 1996, his sonin-law Ramji Dass was in a private job in a factory and he resided in Mohalla Kabir Nagar alongwith his daughter and on 08.09.2006, he went to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he saw the corpse of his daughter Sunita Devi lying in the Civil Hospital and he identified the corpse of Sunita Devi and his statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded by the police. PW5 Kashmiri Lal, HC further testified that on 08.09.2006, Rajwinder Singh, ASI had given special report to him for delivery, thereof, to the Illaqa Magistrate and to the higher police officials and, so long as, the report remained with him, no one tampered, therewith, and his statement was also recorded.

¶54

PW6 Surjit Singh, SI, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, also testified that on 08.09.2006, when he was present at Gill Chowk in connection with patrolling, he recorded the statement Ex.PA of Ramji Dass, which he sent to the Police Station through Sukhdev Singh, HC, where formal FIR Ex.PW6/A was recorded by Rajwinder Singh, ASI and then, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan Ex.PW6/B and Ramji Dass produced one chunni, whereby, his wife was strangulated by the appellants and he prepared parcel, thereof, and sealed that parcel with seal bearing impression 'SS' and seized that parcel vide memo Ex.PW6/C, attested by Dalbir Singh, ASI and Ramji Dass complainant.

¶55

PW6 Surjit Singh, SI further testified that Dalbir Singh, ASI , after autopsy on the corpse of Sunita Devi, produced one Kamiz and salwar of pink colour butidar and one black under-wear before him and he prepared parcel, thereof, and sealed that parcel with his seal bearing

¶56

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶57

¶58

impression 'HS' and seized that parcel vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He also prepared inquest report Ex.PW6/D and arrested appellants on 10.09.2006 vide memo Ex.PW6/E of Ram Swarth appellant and Ex.PW6/F of Bachi Devi appellant and he also sent intimation memo Ex.PW6/G of Bachi Devi appellant and Ex.PW6/H of Ram Swarth appellant. He also testified that he also prepared personal search memo Ex.PW6/1 of Ram swarth appellant and Ex.PW6/G of Bachi Devi appellant and on return to Police Station, he deposited the case property with MHC. Case property i.e Chunni Ex.P1, Salwar Ex.P2, Kamiz Ex.P3 and under-wear Ex.P4 were produced during the deposition of this witness.

¶59

PW7 Ram Sharan, HC prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW7/A of the place of occurrence.

¶60

PW8 Dr.R.K.Sharma, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana testified that he was the member of the board consisting of himself and Dr.Sanjeev Hans andthey conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Sunita Devi on 09.09.2006 and he testified that the following injuries were observed on the corpse of Sunita Devi:-

¶61

A ligature mark observed of 11-1/2 inches in length x 1 inch in width of the right side of the neck 3-4 inch on the left side present in front of the thyroid cartilage slightly upper and backwards on the right side 2-1/2 inch below the lower border of the right ear and going upwards and backwards from the left side ending behind the middle of the left ear. The groove in the ligature mark is abraded in front and backside in front of the neck.

¶62

PW8 Dr.R.K.Sharma further testified that on dissection of the neck, there was a mild acchymosis present in the skin. The trachea is congested and clotted blood collected. He testified that cause of death in this case was due to asyphixia as a result of strangulation, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also testified that all the injuries were ante mortem. The time between the injury and

¶63

¶64

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶65

death was immediate and between the death and post mortem was three days. He proved the carbon copy of autopsy report Ex.PW8/A, which bears his signature. He also proved pictorial diagram Ex.PW8/B showing seats of injuries, which also bears his signature. He also testified that Dr. Sanjeev Hans also signed the autopsy report.

¶66

DW-1 Pawan Kumar testified that he has been residing in House No. 10738, Gali No. 8, Kot Mangal Singh Ludhiana for the last 5 years and doing the work to sell of vegetables from place to place. He also testified that he is the brother-in-law of Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) and Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-910-DB of 2008) is the wife of Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) and both have been residing at a distance of one kilometer from his house and he often come to meet them at their house. He, further, testified that on 07.09.2006, at about 4.00 p.m. he went to the house of the appellants, where Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-910-DB of 2008) told him that Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) has been in police custody in Police Post Daba, Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana and when he went to the concerned police station to meet Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009), ASI told him that Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) is under enquiry in suicide case and will be released at night. He, further testified that the concerned police official did not release Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) at night and on the next day i.e. on 08.09.2006, he read a news published in the newspaper Dainik Jagran that Sunita committed suicide by hanging with chunni on her neck. He, further, testified that again, he went to the police station where concerned ASI told him that on the direction of SSP, Ludhiana, Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) has been arrested under Section 302 IPC.

¶67

DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC, testified that on 07.09.2006, he was posted

¶68

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶69

¶70

at Police Post Daba, Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana and was informed by Munshi of Police Station Shimlapuri about the occurrence and he was informed to go to Kabir Nagar and on the said direction, he reached the place of occurrence at about 2.15 p.m. accompanied by Mohinder Singh, Volunteer of the Punjab Home Guard and found people from the vicinity gatherred there at the time of his arrival and some person had conveyed the information about the occurrence to MHC of Police Station Shimlapuri. He, further, testified that he recorded the statement copy Ex.D1 of Ramji Dass (PW-2) at the place of occurrence. He also saw the pristine of Ex.D1 from the police file brought by him, which was returned to him after examination. He, further, testified that he did not record the statement about the occurrence of any other witness and he was told by the husband of the deceased namely Ramji Dass (PW-2) that she had committed suicide, but no other fact was told to him.

¶71

DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC, further testified that, thereafter, he shifted the corpse of Sunita Devi to Civil Hospital Ludhiana for autopsy and moved an application Ex.D2 before the Senior Medical Officer, Ludhiana for autopsy on the corpse of Sunita Devi. He, further, testified that pristine of Ex.D2 was placed in the police file brought by him, which was returned to him. He also testified that he had seen the copy of another application filed by him Ex.D3 containing request for retention of the corpse of the deceased (Sunita Devi) in the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. He, also brought pristine, thereof, which was returned to him. He, also testified that Ramji Dass (PW-2) had appended his signatures on his statement, copy Ex.D1, in his presence. He also testified that copy of DDR, which was true copy of the original, was seen by him in the police file as Ex.D4 and he further, testified that he filled the form under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding contents of the corpse, which was copy of the original, which was seen by him. He, further, testified that he shifted the corpse from the place

¶72

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶73

¶74

of occurrence to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana in a three wheeler and Ramji Dass (PW-2) made payment of the fare of the three wheeler. He also testified that on reaching the place of occurrence, he gave the report to Incharge, Police Post Daba and Station House Officer, Police Station, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana on phone. He also testified that as stated by the complainant (Ramji Dass), his wife had committed suicide.

¶75

Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondentState contended that there is no flaw in the impugned judgment and order, which do not suffer from any illegality, impropriety and perversity and, therefore, the same be upheld and affirmed. He also contended that Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) and Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-910-DB of 2008) had a strong motive to commit the murder of Sunita Devi, as she had demanded back the loan amount of `3000/-, which she had arranged for Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) from one Madhu for the purchase of motorcycle and when the said amount was demanded back, Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) felt humiliated and he got infuriated and extended threats to kill Sunita Devi. So, he contended that only appellants committed the murder of Sunita, which was witnessed by PW-2 Ramji Dass, who did not get the case of murder registered against the appellants, as he was under threat from them that if, he told this occurrence to any one or the police, he will be done to death and due to this fear, he reported the matter to the police vide statement Ex.D1, as a suicidal death of Sunita Devi, but later, he took the courage and got the case registered against Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) and Bachi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-910-DB of 2008).

¶76

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is a weak type of motive alleged against the appellants, who had no motive to commit the murder and simply on the ground, that loan amount

¶77

¶78

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶79

was demanded back from Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) could not be a motive for the appellants to commit the murder of Sunita Devi (deceased). So, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment and order suffer from impropriety and perversity, therefore, these should be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted of the charge framed against them by the learned trial Court by according them benefit of doubt.

¶80

After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have substance, therein, while the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State are devoid of merit, as in the beginning, PW-2 Ramji Dass vide statement copy Ex.D1, stated before the police that at about 12.45 p.m. on 07.09.2006, his neighbour telephonically informed him in his factory, where, he was employed, that his wife has committed suicide by hanging with a ceiling fan and she has died and he immediately rushed to his house. He further stated in his statement, copy Ex.PD1, that when he came to his house, the corpse of his wife Sunita Rani was lying on the bed and there were signs of hanging aroung her neck. He, further stated that he learnt from his tenant that her body was hanging with a fan and his tenant Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) removed the dead body of Sunita Rani hanging with a fan. He, further stated before the police that his wife died as a result of commission of suicide by her and nobody is responsible for her death ad he has no suspicion of her being killed by any one.

¶81

On this statement, copy Ex.D1, endorsement was made by DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC. According to DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC, he found 22-23 persons at the place of occurrence. Before or after recording the statement copy Ex.D1 of Ramji Dass (PW-2), DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC, would have verified the exact position about the circumstances,

¶82

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶83

¶84

whereunder, Sunita Rani turned into corpse. So, the statement copy Ex.D1 was the first information about the death of Sunita Devi given by Ramji Dass (PW-2).

¶85

PW-2 Ramji Dass, according to his statement, copy Ex.D1, himself was not present at the time of alleged occurrence. If, statement copy Ex.D1, which was recorded by DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC, is examined minutely, it shall emerge, therefrom, that some neighbourers informed PW2 Ramji Dass about the death of his wife Sunita Rani. In view of the statement copy Ex.D1, Ramji Dass (PW-2) came to his house only after being informed on telephone by his neighbourers. In his subsequent statement Ex.PA, which formed the basis of formal FIR Ex. PW6/A, he told the police that he saw both the appellants committing the murder of his wife.

¶86

Statement Ex.PA of Ramji Dass (PW-2) is quite repugnant to his earlier statement copy Ex.D1 and the variation in both must make the case of the prosecution doubtful. If the occurrence had taken place as alleged, in statement Ex.PA, the complainant (Ramji Dass-PW-2) would not have kept himself cool on seeing the appellants committing the murder of his wife. If, he would have been present at the spot and had seen the appellants committing the murder of his wife, in that event, he would have raised alarm and that would have attracted people from the vicinity and with their help, the appellants would have been over powered there and then, and handed over to the police by giving information on telephone like the information given to the police which initially resulted in recording of statement, copy Ex.D1, of the complainant (Ramji Dass-PW2).

¶87

PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) had tried to give reason, as to why he could not disclose the true fact to the police at the time of getting recorded statement, copy Ex.D1, to the effect that the appellants had threatened to kill him, as also, his children, if, he informed the police and

¶88

¶89

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶90

raised alarm and due to that reason, he did not disclose true facts to the police, which were disclosed to the police only, on the asking of Shashi Bhushan (PW-3) and his relatives.

¶91

Even, PW-3 Shashi Bhushan was not present at the time of alleged incident, who reached his house about 15 minutes after the alleged incident. In the cross-examination, PW-3 Shashi Bhushan testified that he was informed by PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) that his (PW-2's) wife Sunita Devi was murdered by the appellants through strangulation with the help of chunni. If, this witness was present at the alleged place of incident on 07.09.2006 then why he could not take the courage to inform the police on 07.09.2006 itself that the version given by the complainant (Ramji DassPW2) vide statement, copy Ex.D1, is false and that this version, vide statement, copy Ex.D1, had been given by the complainant (Ramji Dass - PW2) out of fear of being killed by the police.

¶92

We fail to understand as to how the complainant (Ramji Dass - PW2) took the courage to level accusation against the appellants for murdering his wife Sunita Devi on 07.09.2006. Respondent has also not been able to explain the circumstances, whereunder, PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) changed his statement copy Ex.D1 to statement Ex.PA. In the former statement, he alleges that his wife had committed suicide, while in the latter statement, he alleged that his wife was murdered by both the appellants. During cross-examination, he testified that both the appellants were standing near his wife Sunita Devi meaning, thereby, that they had not caught hold the neck of Sunita Devi (deceased). So, this statement of PW2 Ramji Dass in the cross-examination is to the effect that when he reached his room, both the appellants were standing near his wife Sunita Devi. This statement would falsify the statement of PW-2 Ramji Dass given in examination-in-chief to the effect that Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-910-DB of 2008) was pressing the neck of his wife Sunita Devi,

¶93

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶94

¶95

while Bachhi Devi (appellant in CRA No. D-7-DB of 2009) had caught hold the arms of his wife.

¶96

So, in this view of cross-examination of PW-2 Ramji Dass, it must follow that when he (PW-2 Ramji Dass) reached his room, both the appellants were standing near his wife Sunita Devi, therfore, PW-2 Ramji Dass did not see the appellants committing the murder of his wife, who further stated during cross-examination that they had no prior enmity with the appellants.

¶97

In this manner, this case emerges to be a case of no enmity between the appellants and the complainant and his wife. When there was no enmity between them, then there would have been no motive for the appellants to commit the murder of Sunita Devi wife of the complainant (PW-2 Ramji Dass).

¶98

Even this witness (PW-2 Ramji Dass) is not a truthful witness. During cross-examination, he testified that he was alone at the time of occurrence, while in his statement, copy Ex.D1, he stated that people had gathered at the place of occurrence and he was informed on telephone about the commission of suicide by his wife Sunita Devi. During crossexamination, PW-2 Ramji Dass testified that he had not given any statement to the Investigating Officer that his wife committed suicide. While in his statement copy Ex.D1, he stated that his wife Sunita Devi committed suicide.

¶99

Evidence of PW-3 Shashi Bhushan is inconsequential to the respondent, as he himself was not present at the time of alleged occurrence, as he testified during cross-examination that he was informed by the complainant (PW-2 Ramji Dass) that Sunita Devi (wife of PW-2 Ramji Dass) had been murdered by the appellants on 07.09.2006. If, it would have been so, he would have informed the police on that day by stating that the statement copy, Ex.D1 suffered by PW-2 Ramji Dass

¶100

¶101

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶102

(complainant) before the police is false. This witness failed to explain the circumstances, whereunder, he could not inform the police on 07.09.2006 itself that he was informed by PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) that the murder of his wife was committed by the appellants and that PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) furnished a false statement, copy Ex.D1, before the police to the effect that his wife had committed suicide.

¶103

Evidence of PW-4 Kashmiri Lal is also inconsequential to the respondent, as he was not present at the time of occurrence. He simply identified the corpse of his daughter Sunita Devi (deceased).

¶104

Evidence of PW-5 Karamjit Singh HC is also inconsequential to the respondent in this regard, as this witness was not present at the time of alleged occurrence who only delivered special reports to the Ilaqa Magistrate and other higher police officials.

¶105

Evidence of PW-6 Surjit Singh SI who is the Investigating Officer of this case, is also inconsequential, as he also failed to explain the circumstances, whereunder, the statement copy Ex.D1 was suffered by PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) before the police to the effect that his wife had committed suicide. He also failed to depose that PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) was under threat of being killed by the appellants, therefore, in the very beginning, he had to suffer statement copy Ex.D1 under compulsion exonerating the appellants from allegation of commission of murder of his wife.

¶106

So, when there is no evidence from the side of PW-6 Surjit Singh SI that there was threat to PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) from the appellants at the time, he (PW-2 Ramji Dass) suffered statement copy Ex.D1 before DW-2 Gurdial Singh HC, his subsequent statement Ex.PA recorded by PW-6 Surjit Singh SI must be held doubtful, which must result into accord of benefit of doubt to the appellants.

¶107

PW-7 Ram Sharan HC simply prepared the site plan. PW-8 Dr. R.K.

¶108

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶109

¶110

Sharma conducted autopsy on the corpse of Sunita Devi.

¶111

So, the fact remains that no one saw the occurrence. The corpse of Sunita Devi was seen by PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) only when it was lying on bed. Motive ascribed to the appellants for committing the murder of Sunita Devi is very weak. The statement copy Ex.D1 renders the death of Sunita Devi (deceased) as suicidal. Medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. R.K. Sharma indicates the death of the deceased as homicide being due to strangulation. There is inconsistent evidence of PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) about strangulation of Sunita Devi (deceased) by the appellants. As already held in his cross-examination, he testified that when he reached his room, both the appellants were standing near his wife Sunita Devi with whom they had no prior enmity. This statement must be given precedence over statement given by PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) in his examination-in-chief and it must follow that he did not see Sunita Devi (deceased) being killed by any one including the appellants.

¶112

When the appellants had no enmity with the deceased (Sunita Devi) and PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) then they could not commit the murder of Sunita Devi (deceased). Even the motive alleged in the statement by PW-2 Ramji Dass is also very weak. Sunita Devi (deceased) had arranged loan of `3000/- for Ram Swarth (appellant in CRA No. D-910DB of 2008) for the purchase of motorcycle from one Madhu and when this loan amount was demanded back, Ram Swarth (appellant) felt humiliated. Madhu herself was not brought to the box. Simply, asking for reimbursement of loan amount by Sunita Devi deceased from Ram Swarth appellant could not be a motive for the appellants to commit the murder of Sunita Devi, especially when no PW saw the occurrence. So, it becomes a case of no evidence where no one saw the appellants committing the murder of Sunita Devi wife of PW-2 Ramji Dass (complainant) and in these circumstances, appellants must earn entitlement for benefit of doubt.

¶113

CRA No.D-7-DB of 2009

¶114

¶115

The learned trial Court, thus, wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants vide impugned judgment and order of sentence, which must be set aside.

¶116

Resultantly, both the appeals succeed and are, hereby, allowed; impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them by according them benefit of doubt. They are ordered to be set at liberty, if not, required in any other

¶117

case.

¶118

(S.P. BANGARH) (S.S. SARON) JUDGE JUDGE

¶119

September 21, 2012 mamta/sham

Bachi Devi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachi Devi v. State of Punjab

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

State of Punjab Vs Ajay Kumar and Anr.

Parmod Kumar Vs Har Parkash & Ors.

Ramu Kundlana & Anr. Vs State of Pb.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surinder Kaur and Ors.

Suraj Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab

Ram Chander Vs Kavita