Dismissed

Ramu Kundlana & Anr. v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2012CRA-D/815/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against convictions under Sections 302, 376(g), and 201 IPC. Upholding the trial court's finding based on circumstantial evidence, recovered weapons, and extra-judicial confessions, the Bench affirmed the appellants' conviction for murder and gang rape.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellants convicted under Sections 302, 376(g), and 201 IPC and sentenced to life and rigorous imprisonment.

Ramu Kundlana & Anr. Vs State of Pb. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA No.815-DB of 2005 DECIDED ON: August 29, 2012

¶5

Ramu Kundlana s/o Sura Kundlana, r/o Barha Kurna,PS Anandpur, District Pachhmi Chhibu (Jhharkhand),

¶6

2.Sukhdev Kundlana s/o Atoa Kundlana, r/o village Saheda, P.S.Manharpur, District Ranchi (Jhharkhand).

........Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab

.........Respondent

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

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH

¶13

Present Mr.Jastej Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶14

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

¶15

S.P.BANGARH, J

¶16

The appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 25/29.08.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in Session Case No. 3 of 17.02.2005, emanating from FIR No.162 dated 30.10.2004, under Sections 376(g), 302 and 201 of the Indian

¶17

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶18

¶19

Penal Code ('IPC' for short) of Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, whereby, the appellants and their two accomplices were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(g) and 201 IPC. Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(g) IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(g) IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the commission

¶20

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶21

¶22

of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Salman Munda and Kishori Tirki, accomplices of the appellants (non appellants) were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(g) IPC. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

¶23

Case of the prosecution is that four years before 30.10.2004, Surjit Singh complainant had taken two killas of land of Piara Singh son of Kundan Singh, resident of village Narur on lease, wherein, he had sown paddy crop. About four days before 30.10.2004, the paddy crop had been harvested. Surjit Singh had taken four killas of land from Mahender Singh son of Major Gurnam Singh, resident of village Narur, on lease, adjacent to that land, wherein, he had sown potato crop. On 30.10.2004, at about 11:30 a.m, Surjit Singh had gone to irrigate the field, wherein, he had sown the potato crop and when he went to take spade from the tubewell motor of Piara Singh, in the water tank of tubewell motor, a corpse of an unidentified female aged about 19/20 years was found lying. Thereupon, Surjit Singh reached village Narur and narrated the incident to Piara Singh, Member Panchayat. Charan Singh was left to guard the corpse and Surjit Singh complainant alongwith Piara Singh, Member Panchayat, resident of village Narur started for

¶24

lodging the FIR, when Sukhdev Singh SI/SHO of Police Station Rawal Pindi alongwith Ravinder Singh SI, Mohan Singh ASI and

¶25

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶26

¶27

other police officials met him at bus stand Rampur Khalyan, where he had held a naka.

¶28

Surjit Singh, complainant made his statement Ex.PF (supra) to Sukhdev Singh, SI, which was read and explained to him and after admitting the correctness, thereof, he signed the same and it was attested by Sukhdev Singh SI and the latter made endorsement Ex.PF/1, thereon, and sent the same to Police Station Sadar Phagwara through Jaswinder Singh Constable, where formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded by Satpal ASI.

¶29

Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh SI alongwith other police officials, Surjit Singh complainant and Piara Singh, Member Panchayat went to tubewell motor of Piara Singh, in the area of village Narur, where the corpse of an unidentified female aged about 19/20 years was lying in the water tank of the tubewell. This corpse was taken out of the water tank and inquest report Ex.PJ, thereof, was prepared by Sukhdev Singh SI, who also prepared site plan Ex.PK of the place of recovery of the corpse. A piece of cloth (parna), which was lying near the corpse was lifted, which was converted into a parcel and that parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SS' and was seized vide memo Ex.PL, attested by Piara Singh and Mohan Singh ASI.

¶30

Later corpse was sent to the mortuary of the Civil Hospital, Phagwara alongwith request Ex.PA for autopsy through Balwinder Singh HC and Jatinder Pal Singh Constable. The corpse could not be identified by anybody. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phagwara and Superintendent of Police (D), Kapurthala also

¶31

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶32

¶33

reached at the aforementioned places, who also made inquiries from people who had gathered there. News was also got published in the newspaper. Messages to the Control Room Kapurthala and other districts of Punjab were sent regarding the recovery of this unidentified corpse. On 31.10.2004 Balwinder Singh HC produced the clothes of the deceased i.e pant Ex.P1, shirt Ex.P2, under-wear Ex.P3 and brazier Ex.P4 before Sukhdev Singh, SI in Police Station Rawal Pindi, who converted those into a parcel, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SS' and seized vide memo Ex.PG. Sukhdev Singh SI deposited case property with seal intact with MHC of Police Station Sadar Phagwara.

¶34

On 20.01.2005, Avtar Singh, Photographer produced six photographs and six negatives before Sukhdev Singh SI and those were seized vide memo Ex.PM.

¶35

Further investigation of this case was entrusted to Darshan Singh SI/SHO of Police Station Phagwara on 31.10.2004, who went through the file and sent message to Tejinder Pal Singh and his wife and started towards village Panchhat. When he reached in the area of village Narur, both met him. They accompanied Darshan Singh SI to the place of occurrence in the area of village Narur and the site was inspected by him. A blood stained scarf (chunni) was recovered from the rooftop of motor of Darbara Singh and Harpreet Kaur identified that scarf (chunni) as that of her maidservant Champa. Thereafter, the said scarf was converted into a parcel by Darshan Singh, SI who sealed it with the seal bearing impression 'DS' and seized that parcel vide memo Ex.PB. Site plan

¶36

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶37

¶38

Ex.PW of the place of recovery of scarf was prepared by Darshan Singh, SI, who on reaching the Police Station, deposited the case property with MHC.

¶39

On 07.11.2004, Darshan Singh SI alongwith the police party was present at Hoshiarpur bye pass in the area of Police Station Sadar Phagwara, where Ravinder Pal Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer ('BDPO' for short ), Mamdot met him, who at that time was in a car. He produced appellants and his accomplices (accused before the learned trial Court) before Darshan Singh SI, who recorded the statement of Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO and the appellants were arrested vide memos Ex.PR and Ex.PR/1 respectively, while their accomplices were arrested vide memos Ex.PR/2 and Ex.PR/3. Personal search of the appellants and their accomplices was conducted jointly and a joint memo Ex.PS was prepared.

¶40

Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) was interrogated by Darshan Singh SI, who suffered disclosure statement Ex.PT, which was signed by him, Lekh Raj, ASI and Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot and later, pursuant, thereto, appellant No.2 got recovered shirt Ex.P19, salwar Ex.P20 and shawl Ex.P21 of Champa (deceased), lying in the fertilizer store of Tejinder Pal Singh. These clothes were converted into a parcel, which was sealed by Darshan Singh, SI with his seal and he seized that parcel vide memo Ex.PQ, attested by Harpreet Kaur and Lekh Raj ASI. Darshan Singh SI also prepared the site plan Ex.PX of the place of recovery of clothes belonging to Champa (deceased).

¶41

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶42

¶43

Thereafter, Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) was interrogated by Darshan Singh SI, who during interrogation, suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PU and pursuant, thereto, he got recovered dagger (chhuri) from underneath the paddy straw at the motor of Piara Singh in the area of village Narur. Rough sketch Ex.PO of the dagger was prepared by Darshan Singh, SI, who lateron, made a parcel thereof, which was sealed by him with the seal bearing impression 'HS' belonging to Harjit Singh HC and that parcel was seized by him vide memo Ex.PN, attested by Tejinder Pal Singh and Harjit Singh HC. Siteplan Ex.PV of the place of recovery of dagger (supra) was also prepared.

¶44

Thereafter, Lekh Raj ASI alongwith Ramu (appellant No.1) came to village Panchhat, where Darshan Singh SI was present and parcel of the dagger was handed over to Darshan Singh SI by Lekh Raj ASI. On return to police station, case property was deposited with MHC with seal intact. During investigation, Darshan Singh SI came to know that appellant No.2 alongwith non appellant Salman Munda committed rape with Champa on the intervening night of 18/19.10.2004. Blood stained parcels were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and latter sent report Ex.PY/1.

¶45

After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar Phagwara, 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 appeared that the appellants and their accomplices have committed offences punishable under Sections 376(g), 302 and 201 IPC.

¶46

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶47

¶48

On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the appellants and their accomplices and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 376(g) IPC against all the accused (appellants Nos.1& 2 and non appellants) and under Sections 302/201 IPC against appellants Nos.1 and 2 was framed, whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.

¶49

At the trial, prosecution examined Dr. Ajay Kumar as PW1, Satpal, ASI as PW2, Baldev Singh, Constable as PW3, Balwinder Singh, HC as PW4, Sukhdev Singh, SI as PW5, Avtar Singh, Photographer as PW6, Surjit Singh, Complainant as PW7, Tejinder Pal Singh as PW8, Vijay Kumar as PW9, Harpreet Kaur as PW10, Ravinder Pal Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Mamdot as PW11, Ashok Kumar, Sweeper as PW12, ASI Lekh Raj as PW13, Constable Parminder Singh as PW14, SI Darshan Singh as PW15 and HC Gurdial Singh as PW16 and closed the evidence of the prosecution.

¶50

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants and their accomplices were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) gave his own version that he was falsely involved in this case by Tejinder Pal Singh and his brother-in-law Ravinder Pal Singh in connivance with the police of Police Station, Phagwara and that he was arrested from village Panchhat where he was living. He further stated that Champa deceased was not known to him, as also, he has neither any concern

¶51

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶52

¶53

with the house of Tejinder Pal Singh nor with his business or shops, as also, he never visited his store. He further stated that he had never gone to village Narur and he has been employed at the instance of Tejinder Pal Singh, as he is an influential person in the area and that to save his own skin, he had got him implicated in this case.

¶54

Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) also gave his own version that he has been involved falsely at the instance of Tejinder Pal Singh, his wife and brother-in-law Ravinder Pal Singh in connivance with the police of Police Station Sadar, Phagwara and that no recovery was effected from him and he did not make any extra judicial confession before anyone or Ravinder Pal Singh and that he was arrested from village Panchhat from the mansion of Tejinder Pal Singh where he was living. Champa (deceased) was not known to him, as also, he has neither any concern with Tejinder Pal Singh nor with his business and also, he neither visited his store nor had gone to village Narur, and also he does not know Ramu and Kishori who were not working with Tejinder Pal Singh in his fields. He further stated that he has been implicated at the instance of Tejinder Pal Singh, as he is an influential person in the area and to save his skin, he has got him implicated in this case.

¶55

Appellants Nos.1 and 2 were called upon to enter in defence, but they closed the defence evidence without examining any witness.

¶56

After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants and their accomplices vide impugned

¶57

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶58

¶59

judgment and order of sentence, as described in the first 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.

¶60

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

¶61

Now first of all, it is to be seen as to what the prosecution witnesses have stated against the appellants and their accomplices.

¶62

PW1 Dr. Ajay Kumar testified that on 31.10.2004, the dead body of an unidentified girl, aged about 19/20 years was received in Civil Hospital, Phagwara, which was brought by Balwinder Singh HC and Jatinder Pal Singh, Constable along with application Ex.PA moved by the police for getting conducting post-mortem examination, thereon. He testified that on receipt of the application, a board of doctors comprising of himself, Dr. Daljit Singh Bains and Dr. Sapna Malhotra was constituted for conducting the autopsy on the corpse aforesaid by Dr.Subhash Chander Sharma, SMO, Civil Hospital, Phagwara, vide endorsement Ex.PA/1, on the application Ex.PA. He further testified that the post-mortem examination was conducted on 31.10.2004 at 11:40 a.m and there was no ligature mark on the neck and it was dead body of a moderately built female. He testified that rigor mortis was not present and dead body was wearing a green coloured shirt, black coloured pant, red coloured underwear and black coloured vest (banian).

¶63

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶64

¶65

PW1 further testified that he found the following injuries

¶66

on the dead body of unknown female:

¶67

1. Incised wound on the upper part of neck,which was 9 cm in length and 2 cm in breadth. On dissection, underlying tracheal wall, was cut completely on its front. Common carotid artery was cut completely on right side;

¶68

2. Superficial skin was peeled at several places on entire body.

¶69

PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar further testified that the stomach was dissected and sent for chemical analysis and a part of small intestine and a part of large intestine were dissected and a piece of liver; a piece of spleen, half of each kidneys were dissected and sent to Chemical Examiner. He further testified that a sample of blood was also sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Two vaginal swabs and pubic hair were sent alongwith the viscera to the Chemical Examiner; an envelop containing police papers duly signed from page nos. 1 to 20 by Dr. Ajay Kumar and that of other members of the board, carbon copy of the post mortem report and sample seal were handed over to Balwinder Singh HC of Police Station Rawal Pindi and Jatinder Singh HC. He also testified that five jars were put into a wooden box sealed with the seal bearing impression 'KEY' and the box was handed over to aforementioned police officials for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. He also testified that

¶70

the probable time that elapsed between injuries and death, was within few minutes and between death and post-mortem was within 36 hours. He also testified that cause of death in this case was kept

¶71

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶72

¶73

pending and was to be intimated after the receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner. He also testified that doctor proved copy of the post-mortem report Ex.PB and the pictorial diagram, showing the seats of injury Ex.PB/1 and on receipt of report Ex.PC, from the Chemical Examiner,Dr.Ajay Kumar and other members of the Board gave the opinion that the cause of death was due to cut injury to common carotid artery, which led to excessive hemorrhage, shock and death. He also testified that injuries on the person of deceased were ante-mortem, in nature, and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Report Ex.PD regarding cause of death was proved by this witness and report regarding two vaginal swabs and pubic hair was also received which showed presence of spermatozoa, and as per the opinion of the Board, sexual intercourse had taken place. He also testified that this opinion was given vide report Ex.PD by the Board of doctors aforesaid.

¶74

PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar was shown dagger at the time of his deposition in the Court and he testified that the injuries on the person of deceased could be possible with dagger Ex.P5.

¶75

PW2 Satpal ASI testified that on 30.10.2004, he was posted as ASI in Police Station Sadar, Phagwara and on that date, a ruqqa Ex.PF was received from Sukhdev Singh SHO of Police Station Rawal Pindi in Police Station Sadar Phagwara and that contained endorsement Ex.PF/1, thereon, by Sukhdev Singh SI and he (PW2) recorded FIR Ex.PF/2 and sent special report Ex.PF/3 through Baldev Singh Constable to the Illaqa Magistrate.

¶76

PW3 Baldev Singh Constable testified that on

¶77

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶78

¶79

30.10.2004, he was posted as Constable in Police Station Sadar Phagwara and was handed over the special report in this case by Sohan Singh ASI and he handed over the same on the same day to the Illaqa Magistrate.

¶80

PW4 Balwinder Singh HC testified that on 31.10.2004, he was posted in Police Post Panchhat and was a member of police party headed by Sukhdev Singh SI and the police party reached the tubewell motor of Piara Singh in the area of village Narur, where the dead body of an unknown girl was lying and after conducting proceedings, the dead body was handed over to him and Jatinder Pal Singh Constable for getting conducting autopsy, thereon, from the Civil Hospital, Phagwara vide request Ex.PA and the doctor after autopsy handed over him one pant Ex.P1, one shirt Ex.P2, one underwear Ex.P3 and one brazier Ex.P4 and lateron, he handed over the same to Sukhdev Singh SI of Police Station Rawal Pindi, who converted these into a parcel and sealed that parcel with his own seal and seized the same vide memo Ex.PG. He also testified that the dead body was handed over to Ashok Kumar, Municipal Councilor, Phagwara for cremation and receipt Ex.PH was obtained from him for handing over the dead body to him.

¶81

PW4 Balwinder Singh HC further testified that on 20.01.2005, Gurdial Singh MHC handed over to him one parcel and one envelop of this case for deposit, thereof, in the office of the Chemical Examiner at Patiala and he deposited the same with the seals intact in that office on the same day and receipt after deposit, thereof, was handed over to Gurdial Singh MHC and, so long as, the

¶82

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶83

¶84

parcel and envelop remained with him, no one tampered, therewith.

¶85

PW5 Sukhdev Singh SI testified that on 30.10.2004, when he was posted as SHO of Police Station Rawal Pindi alongwith Ravinder Singh SI and other police officials was present at bus stand Rampur Khalyan in connection with naka bandi, recorded the statement Ex.PF of Surjit Singh and he appended endorsement, thereon, Ex.PF/1 and sent the same to Police Station Sadar, Phagwara through Jaswinder Singh Constable and, on the basis thereof, formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded and, thereafter, he went to the tubewell motor of Piara Singh in the area of village Narur; a dead body of an unidentified female, aged about 19/20 years was lying in the water tank of the tubewell, which was taken out from the water tank and inquest report Ex.PJ, thereof, was prepared and site plan Ex.PK of the place where the dead body was lying, was also prepared.

¶86

PW5 Sukhdev Singh SI further testified that a piece of cloth (parna), lying near the dead body of an unidentified lady was lifted; the same was converted into a parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SS' and was seized vide memo Ex.PL. He also testified that dead body was entrusted to HC Balwinder Singh and C Jatinder Pal Singh for getting conducting post-mortem examination, thereon, from Civil Hospital Phagwara vide report Ex.PA. He also testified that news was published in the newspaper, messages to control room Kapurthala and in all the districts of Punjab were sent regarding recovery of an unidentified dead body of female and on 31.10.2004, Balwinder Singh HC produced clothes of deceased

¶87

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶88

¶89

Champa before him in Police Station Rawal Pindi, which were handed over to him by the doctor and he prepared parcel, thereof, and sealed that parcel with his own seal bearing impression 'SS' and seized that parcel vide memo Ex.PG. He also testified that the photographs of unidentified dead body were also taken and on 20.01.2005 Avtar Singh Photographer produced before him six photographs and six negatives and those were seized vide memo Ex.PM.

¶90

PW6 Avtar Singh Photographer took photographs of the dead body of a female on 30.10.2004. He testified that he handed over the photographs to Sukhdev Singh SI on 20.01.2005 alongwith negatives and lateron, seized those vide memo Ex.PM. Negatives Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 and positives Ex.P13 to Ex.P18 were produced during the deposition of this witness.

¶91

PW7 Surjit Singh Complainant testified that on 30.10.2004, he went to tubewell motor of Mahender Singh at about 11:00 am for taking spade and he saw the dead body of a female in the water tank of that tubewell motor and informed Piara Singh, Member Panchayat in this regard and also informed the police vide statement Ex.PF, which was read over and explained to him and he signed the same after admitting the correctness, thereof

¶92

PW8 Tejinder Pal Singh testified that Champa was employed by them as a maid servant, who was residing in his house and Ramu Kundlana and Sukhdev Kundlana - appellants Nos.1 and 2 and Salman - non appellant (accused present in the Court ) were his servants and they were residing in his haveli on the back side of

¶93

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶94

¶95

his residential house and they were not claiming any rent from them for their residence in the haveli. He also testified that Ramu (appellant No.1) and Kishori (non appellant) were working with Jujhar Singh and Sohan Singh respectively of his village and they also used to come to meet Sukhdev (appellant No.2) and Salman (non appellant). He also testified that Champa left his house on 20/21.10.2004 for some unknown place and on 30.10.2004, he learnt that a dead body of some female had been found. He further testified that on 07.10.2004, police of Police Station,Phagwara came to his house and Ramu (appellant No.1) was with the police at that time and he (PW8) was joined in the police party and then at about 05:30 p.m, he alongwith police went in the area of village Narur, where dead body of a female was lying and there was a knife lying in the heap of paddy straw near the motor and Ramu (appellant No.1) got recovered that knife from the heap of paddy straw and Investigating Officer converted the same into a parcel, which was sealed by him with his seal bearing impression 'SS' and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PN and before making the parcel of the knife, its sketch Ex.PO was also prepared which was signed by him and Surjit Singh.

¶96

PW9 Vijay Kumar also testified that on the intervening night of 26/27.10.2004, he was going to his field in the area of village Panchhat in order to guard the maize (spikes) lying in his field on his bicycle and he had a torch with him at that time and when he reached near the field of Sarban Singh son of Kartar Singh, he saw Ramu and Sukhdev (appellants Nos.1 and 2) coming from the field towards Baba Phaliana road and he asked as to from where, they

¶97

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶98

¶99

were coming,and they told that they were coming after irrigating the fields. He also testified that they got perplexed and were perturbed at that time. He also testified that he does not know, as to whether the dead body of the female was lying.

¶100

PW10 Harpreet Kaur wife of Tejinder Pal Singh also testified that Champa was employed by them as a servant in their house and Salman and Sukhdev Singh were also their servants; on the night of 20.10.2004, Champa (now deceased), left their house and in the morning, they made attempts to search her, but she could not be found and on 31.10.2004, she and her husband went to motor of Piara Singh, in the area of village Narur and, thereafter, they were taken to tubewell of Sarban Singh and police then took a scarf from the roof of the room of the tubewell motor, which was blood stained and was converted into a parcel and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PF. She further testified that this scarf belonged to Champa as on the intervening night, when Champa left their house,she was having that scarf with her, which was given to her (Champa) by her (PW10). She also testified that Sukhdev and Salman (their servants) used to stay in their haveli and on 07.11.2004, Sukhdev Singh (appellant No.2) opened the lock of the shop in front of their house and a bag was lying, therein, containing clothes and got recovered a stitched suit, which Champa was wearing at the time, when she left her house and she identified those clothes, as the same were worn by Champa, when she left her house and those clothes were converted into a parcel by Darshan Singh Inspector and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PQ.

¶101

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶102

¶103

PW11 Ravinder Pal Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mamdot, testified that he was married in the year 1988 at village Panchhat and that Tejinder Pal Singh is his brotherin-law, who is cultivator-cum-commission Agent. He further testified that after his marriage, he used to go to his in-law's house and that Harpreet Kaur is the wife of his brother-in-law Tejinder Pal Singh and the latter had employed Champa Rani, as maid servant since October 2004; Salman and Sukhdev, accused present in the court, were also employed by his brother-in-law Tejinder Pal Singh for cultivating the land and that since, he used to go to his in-laws house, he identified Champa and also Sukhdev and Salman accused. He further testified that he also knew Ramu and Kishori, accused present in the Court, and he came to know them on account of murder of Champa and earlier he did not know them.

¶104

PW11 Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot further testified that on 22.10.2004, he was present at Ferozepur, where he received a telephonic call from Harpreet Kaur that Champa, maid servant, had left the house on the intervening night of 20/21.10.2004. She further told him on telephone that despite efforts, Champa could not be traced and on 30.10.2004, Harpreet Kaur rang him up at Ferozepur and told that the corpse of a girl was found at the tubewell motor on the boundary of Narur and Panchhat villages and he (PW11) should come to their village. He further testified that on 30.10.2004 at late night, he reached Panchhat and on the next day, he asked Sukhdev and Salman accused, as to who had committed the murder of Champa and they could not give any satisfactory reply

¶105

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶106

¶107

to his query and, thereafter, he went back and on 05.11.2004, he again came to village Panchhat and suspected Salman and Sukhdev accused to be perpetrators of murder of Champa and he again made query from them, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. He further testified that on 07.11.2004, he was present in the area of his in-laws house at Panchhat village where Salman, Sukhdev, Ramu and Kishori, accused present in the Court, came to the haveli of his in-laws at Panchhat and Sukhdev accused told him that they had an information that police suspected them for the commission of murder of Champa and they could not run away and he (PW11) should help them and get them produced before the police.

¶108

PW11 Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO further testified that in the first instance, Sukhdev, accused present in the Court, told him that on the night of 20/21.10.2004, he and Salman brought Champa to their room and, thereafter, she was asked to change her clothes and, to wear the clothes of a male so as to disguise her identity as a female and that he and Salman then took Champa to the tubewell motor of Billa, in the area of Panchhat, and he (Sukhdev) left Salman there and went to bring Kishori and Ramu and brought them to the tubewell motor. PW11 further testified that Sukhdev accused further told that Salman, Kishori and Ramu continued committing rape with Champa throughout the night and told him that Champa was kept at the motor incessantly for four nights and one out of them used to remain at the motor aforesaid and the remaining accused used to go to attend their jobs and then Champa expressed her desire that she be sent to Chandigarh and

¶109

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶110

¶111

she told that in case, she was not sent to Chandigarh, she would raise alarm and disclose Bittu @ Tejinder Pal Singh about the incident and then he, Salman, Kishori and Ramu got frightened and then he and Salman took Champa to another motor belonging to one Junior Engineer in the area of Narur and, thereafter, he (Sukhdev), Salman, Kishori and Ramu committed rape on Champa at that motor and he (Sukhdev) accused held Champa of her legs and Ramu slit her throat with a knife.

¶112

PW11 Ravinder Pal Singh also testified that Sukhdev accused further told him that he and Salman accused threw the corpse of Champa in a water tank and he and Salman committed murder of Champa. PW11 further testified that Salman, accused present in the Court, also repeated the same story before him as was narrated by Sukhdev Singh. He further testified that Salman and Kishori accused told him that they committed rape with Champa, but did not commit her murder and all the accused present in the Court then told him (PW11) that they were being suspected by the police regarding murder of Champa and they would be arrested by the police at any time and they could not run away and all the four accused again told him (PW11) that he being an Officer should produce them before the police.

¶113

PW11 Ravinder Pal Singh further testified that on 07.11.2004, he took all the four accused present in the Court, and produced them before the police at Hoshiarpur Chowk, where they were arrested by the police in their presence and the arrest memos of Sukhdev, Ramu, Kishori and Salman were prepared as Ex.PR,

¶114

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶115

¶116

Ex.PR/1, Ex.PR/2 and Ex.PR/3 respectively and he appended his signatures, thereon, and accused also signed their respective arrest memos. PW11 further testified that on 07.11.2004, Sukhdev accused, in the presence of other three accused, told him that on earlier occasions, the date whereof, he does not remember, he and Salman took Champa to their room and committed rape on her on those occasions also.

¶117

PW12 Ashok Kumar, Sweeper testified that on 31.10.2004, he, Chand Kumar and Ashok Kumar were present in the office of Nagar Council, Phagwara and at about 02:00 p.m, on that day, police came and told the Executive Officer that an unidentified corpse had been received by them and Executive Officer told them that they should cremate that corpse and, thereupon, they cremated the same in the cremation ground at Banga Road, Phagwara and receipt Ex.PH was handed over to police, who came there and the same bears his signatures.

¶118

PW13 Lekh Raj ASI testified that on 31.10.2004, he was posted as ASI in Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, and on that date, he was the member of police party headed by Darshan Singh SI and that they went to the tubewell motor of Piara Singh, in the area of village Narur; Harpreet Kaur and Tejinder Pal Singh also met him in the way and were also joined in the police party and they checked two rooms constructed at the motor of Piara Singh, in the area of village Narur and a scarf (chunni) was recovered from the rooftop of aforesaid room, which was stained with blood and the same was converted into a parcel, which was sealed by Darshan Singh SI with

¶119

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶120

¶121

his seal bearing impression 'DS' and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PP, which was attested by him and Harpreet Kaur and the said scarf was identified by Harpreet Kaur, who told that the said scarf (chunni) belonged to their maid servant Champa.

¶122

PW13 Lekh Raj ASI further testified that on 07.11.2004, he was a member of police party headed by Darshan Singh SI, which was present on Phagwara bye pass, in the area of Phagwara where Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot came in a car alongwith the accused present in the Court, who were produced by him before Darshan Singh SI and latter made queries from the accused and arrested them vide memos Ex.PR, Ex.PR/1, Ex.PR/2 and Ex.PR/3, attested by him (PW13 Lekh Raj ASI) and Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot (PW11). He also testified that the personal search memo Ex.PS of all the accused was prepared jointly and Sukhdev Singh (accused-appellant No.2) suffered disclosure statement Ex.PT and pursuant, thereto, got recovered one stitched woman suit and a shawl, which belonged to Champa deceased and Harpreet Kaur (PW10) identified those clothes of Champa deceased and the same were converted into a parcel which was sealed by Darshan Singh, SI with his seal bearing impression 'DS' and parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PQ, attested by him (PW13) and Harpreet Kaur(PW10). These clothes were produced during deposition of PW13 Lekh Raj ASI and were exhibited as shirt Ex.P19, trousers (salwar) Ex.P20 and shawl Ex.P21.

¶123

PW13 Lekh Raj ASI further testified that Ramu accused, during interrogation, suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PU and

¶124

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶125

¶126

pursuant, thereto, got recovered knife (chhuri) from under the heap of paddy straw in the area of village Narur and rough sketch Ex.PD, thereof, was prepared and the knife was converted into a parcel which was sealed with seal bearing impression 'HS' belonging to Harjeet Singh Constable and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PN. This knife (chhuri) Ex.P5 was shown to PW13 Lekh Raj ASI during his deposition and he testified that it is the same which was got recovered by Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) and he also testified that the site plan of the place of recovery of knife is Ex.PU.

¶127

PW13 Lekh Raj ASI further testified that on 31.10.2004, a scarf (chunni) was recovered from the roof top of the tubewell of Sardara Singh in the area of village Narur and that was identified by Harpreet Kaur (PW10) as that of Champa, her maid-servant, which was blood stained and that scarf (chunni) was converted into a parcel, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'DS' and parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PP, attested by him (PW13 Lekh Raj ASI) and Harpreet Kaur. Scarf (chunni) Ex.P22 was produced in the Court during deposition of PW13 Lekh Raj ASI.

¶128

PW14 Parminder Singh, Constable testified that on 07.12.2004, Gurdial Singh MHC handed over a parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression 'DS' and he deposited the same with the office of the Chemical Examiner Punjab, Chandigarh on that very day and handed over deposit receipt to MHC on the same day. He testified that, so long as, the parcel remained with him, no one tampered, therewith.

¶129

PW15 Drashan Singh SI is the Investigating Officer of this

¶130

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶131

¶132

case, who deposed on the lines of investigation, which has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment.

¶133

PW16 Gurdial Singh, HC testified that on 30.10.2004, Darshan Singh SI deposited with him one parcel containing blood stained chhuri sealed with the seal bearing impression 'DS' and on 07.12.2004, he sent this parcel through Parminder Singh, Constable to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh, who deposited the same there and handed over the receipt. He also testified that on 30.10.2004, a parcel containing clothes of deceased Champa was deposited with him and he testified that he does not remember on which date, he sent that parcel to the Chemical Exmainer, Patiala. This witness was declared hostile and during cross examination, he testified that on 05.11.2004, he handed over the parcel and envelop to Balwinder Singh, HC for depositing the same with Chemical Examiner, Patiala who after deposit, thereof, handed over the receipt to him and on 10.12.2004, his statement was also recorded by Lember Singh SI. He also testified during cross examination that parcel, which was deposited with him by Darshan Singh SI was sent to Chemical Examiner Punjab, Chandigarh and that his statement that parcel containing chhuri was sent to Chemical Examiner is correct and he cannot assign any reason as to why he has made a false statement that parcel containing chhuri was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala. He testified that, so long as, the parcel remained with him, no one tampered, therewith.

¶134

It may be mentioned here that Salman and Kishori, who were convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment and order of

¶135

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶136

¶137

sentence have not preferred any appeal. Only appellants nos. 1and 2 have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order of sentence.

¶138

Learned counsel for appellants nos. 1 and 2 contended that no extra judicial confession was made by the appellants nos. 1 and 2 and their accomplices (non appellants) before Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot (PW11) and that the evidence of the latter is not reliable because of his close relationship with Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8). He also contended that it is highly improbable that appellants would go to the relatives of interested witnesses to make confession instead of choosing some other respectable persons in the society like Sarpanch, Lamberdar or Member Panchayat of the village. So, he contended that there was no reason for the appellants to go to Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11), who, at that time was posted at a far off place from the place of occurrence.

¶139

Learned counsel for the appellants nos. 1 and 2 also contended that from the medical evidence, it is not proved that the common carotid artery could be cut in the manner as deposed by Dr.Ajay Kumar PW1. He also contended that the identification of the corpse was not made by any person and under these circumstances, it was wrongly held by the trial Court that the corpse was that of Champa. It was also contended that Champa was employed as a maid servant by Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8) and no police report was lodged by the latter, when the former disappeared from his house and did not return for a number of days. This silence on the part of Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8) goes to show that the occurrence had not

¶140

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶141

¶142

taken place in the manner alleged. So, learned counsel for the appellants nos. 1 and 2 contended that latter were wrongly convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment and order of sentence which may be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charge framed against them by according them benefit of doubt.

¶143

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentState contended that the impugned judgment and order are well reasoned and these are required to be up-held and affirmed and benefit of doubt is not required to be given to the appellants, as they are guilty of commission of murder of Champa and they themselves made confession in this regard before PW11 Ravinder Pal Singh,BDPO, Mamdot, whose testimony, during cross examination, could not be shattered.

¶144

We have given our careful thought to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants nos.1 and 2 are meritless while, on the contrary, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are having substance, therein.

¶145

It is no-doubt true, that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and in such like cases, it has to be satisfied as to whether the circumstances indicate the complicity of the appellants or not. PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar, Medical Officer alongwith other members of the board conducted autopsy on the corpse of Champa and found one incised wound on the upper part of neck, which was 9 cm in length and 2 cm in breadth. On dissection,

¶146

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶147

¶148

underlying trachea wall, was cut completely on its front. Common carotid artery was cut completely on right side. The doctor in clear cut terms testified that injuries were ante mortem in nature and cause of death was due to cut injury to common carotid artery, which led to excessive hemorrhage, shock and death. He also testified that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

¶149

The dagger (chhuri) Ex.P5 was shown to PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar during his deposition and he testified in candid words that injuries on the person of deceased could be possible with the knife (chhuri ) Ex.P5. So, evidence of PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar during cross examination could not be shattered. No motive can be ascribed to PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar to testify falsely in this case and from his testimony, it emerges that the death of Champa Devi was homicidal.

¶150

Knife (chhuri) Ex.P5 was recovered from Ramu Kundala (appellant No.1) on 07.11.2004, pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PT. This dagger (chhuri) was shown to PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar, Medical Officer, who in candid words testified that injuries on the person of Champa deceased could be possible, therewith.

¶151

The disclosure statement of Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) dated 07.11.2004 cannot be said to be false. There was no motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to foist this disclosure statement and resultant recovery of chhuri pursuant, thereto, upon him. There is nothing to indicate that this disclosure statement was extracted from him through coercion. So, it is well established in this case that the knife (chhuri) Ex.P5 was used in

¶152

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶153

¶154

committing the murder of Champa.

¶155

Now it is to be seen as to whether the corpse of Champa was identified properly or not. Regarding this, it is amply established on the record that Champa was employed as maid servant in the house of Harpreet Kaur (PW10) and Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8). When she left the house, she was wearing a scarf (chunni), which was given to her by Harpreet Kaur (PW10). Latter stated in candid words that this scarf (chunni) was given by her to Champa and the said scarf (chunni), stained with blood, was recovered from the roof top of tubewell motor of Darbara Singh in her presence and she identified that scarf (chunni) as that of Champa and she stated so in candid words while appearing as PW10.

¶156

Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2), during investigation, suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PU and pursuant, thereto, he got recovered shirt Ex.P19, trousers(salwar) Ex.P20 and shawl Ex.P21, which, too, were identified by Harpreet Kaur PW10, who in candid words testified that Champa was wearing these clothes when she left her house. The photographs Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 were also seen by Harpreet Kaur PW10. From these photographs, she identified the corpse of Champa.

¶157

The photographs Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 were taken by Avtar Singh, Photographer PW6 on 30.10.2004 at the instance of the police. The testimony of Harpreet Kaur (PW10), during cross examination could not be shattered. No motive can be ascribed to her to testify falsely in this case. She identified the scarf (chunni) Ex.P22, chhuri Ex.P5, photographs Ex.P14 & Ex.P15 and clothes i.e

¶158

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶159

¶160

shirt Ex.P19, trousers(salwar) Ex.P20 and Shawl Ex.P21 of her maid servant Champa. So, the respondent before the learned trial Court had been able to prove that unidentified corpse, on which the autopsy was conducted by PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar, Medical Officer and other members of the board was that of Champa, maid servant of Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8) and Harpreet Kaur (PW10).

¶161

Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether Champa was employed by Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8) and Harpreet Kaur (PW10) as maid servant. Both in candid words testified that Champa was residing in their house and appellant No.2 and non appellant Salman were also employed by them as their servants, who were residing in mansion on the back side of his residential house in the area of village Panchhat. Harpreet Kaur (PW10) also testified that Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) and Kishori (non appellant) were working with Jujhar Singh and Sohan Singh respectively of his village and they used to visit Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) and Salman (non appellant), who were their servants and, therefore, they knew them.

¶162

Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) and Salman (non appellant) in their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C admitted that they were employed as servants by Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8), but they stated that they were living in a mansion, which was far away from his house. Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) and Kishori (non appellant) also stated that they were living in village Panchhat.

¶163

So, it is proved that Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) and Salman (non appellant) were employed by Tejinder Pal Singh

¶164

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶165

¶166

(PW8) and Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) and Kishori (non appellant) were employed by Jujhar Singh and Sohan Singh respectively of the same village and the latter used to come to the former and they had close proximity with each other.

¶167

So, Champa being maid servant of Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8) and Harpreet Kaur (PW10) was supposed to come in contact with appellants and their accomplices. Because of this proximity, it can be presumed that Champa could have been coaxed by the appellants and their accomplices to accompany them. If all the accused and Champa would have been working at a common place then it could be held that they could not induce Champa to come close to them.

¶168

The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and their accomplices exploited their proximity with Champa (deceased) and took her with them on the intervening night of 26/27.10.2004 to the motor of Piara Singh located in the area of village Narur. Vijay Kumar (PW9) candidly testified that on the night intervening 26/27.10.2004, when he was coming to his fields, he saw Ramu Kundlana and Sukhdev Singh (appellants nos. 1 and 2) at about 01/1:30 a.m coming from the fields of Sarwan Singh and going towards Baba Phaliana road and when he asked as to from where they were coming, they got perturbed and perplexed and the learned trial Court rightly relied upon testimony of PW9 Vijay Kumar for formulating opinion that since Ramu Kundlana and Sukhdev Kundlana (appellants Nos. 1 and 2) were perplexed and perturbed when PW9 asked them as to what they were doing during odd hours showed that they were involved in

¶169

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶170

¶171

the commission of murder of Champa.

¶172

Scarf (chunni), stained with blood, which was identified by Harpreet Kaur (PW10) as that of Champa was recovered from the roof top of the tubewell motor of Darbara Singh, situated near the place from where the corpse of Champa was found in the water tank of tubewell motor of Piara Singh. This scarf (chunni) was later found to be stained with human blood as can be seen from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh Ex.PY. This parcel was handled by Gurdial Singh PW16 and Darshan Singh SI PW15, who was the Investigating Officer of the present case. They in candid words testified that so long as the parcel remained in their possession, no one tampered therewith. So, link evidence in this case is complete and it follows that the parcel of scarf (chunni), which was stained with blood and recovered from the roof top of the room of tubewell motor of Darbara Singh, was kept in an intact condition during investigation and no one tampered, therewith, till its deposit with the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh. So, link evidence in this case is complete.

¶173

Three clothes i.e shirt Ex.P19, trousers(salwar) Ex.P20 and Shawl Ex.P21, which were worn by Champa when she left the house, as testified by Harpreet Kaur (PW10), were got recovered by Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PT and these were identified by PW10 Harpreet Kaur as that of Champa and her testimony on this point, during cross examination, could not be shattered.

¶174

So, recovery of clothes of Champa, which she was

¶175

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶176

¶177

wearing at the time when she left the house of PW10 Harpreet Kaur candidly proves that Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) was involved in the commission of murder of Champa, as he failed to explain the circumstances, whereunder, he came in possession of the clothes ibid of Champa (deceased).

¶178

Learned trial Court rightly observed that Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2), during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C failed to explain the circumstances, whereunder, he came into possession of shirt Ex.P19, trousers(salwar) Ex.P20 and shawl Ex.P21 belonging to Champa. Non furnishing of explanation to this circumstance would candidly lead to inevitable conclusion that Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) had complicity in commission of murder of Champa.

¶179

Now, it is to be seen as to whether the rape was committed on Champa. Regarding this, suffice it to say that her vaginal swabs and pubic hair were sent to Chemical Examiner and the latter vide report Ex.PE found spermatozoa on the contents of high vaginal swab and low vaginal swab and on the basis of report Ex.PE of Chemical Examiner Punjab, Chandigarh, medical board consisting of PW1 Dr.Ajay Kumar opined vide report Ex.PD that sexual intercourse had taken place with Champa deceased. Appellants were having custody of Champa and the sexual intercourse could only be committed by them with Champa. Since accused were four in number, learned trial Court rightly concluded that the appellants and their accomplices committed gang rape with Champa deceased.

¶180

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶181

¶182

Regarding extra judicial confession suffered by the appellants and non appellants before Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot (PW11), suffice it to say that he is the brother-in-law of Tejinder Pal Singh and he was obvious visitor to his house and he was supposed to know the appellants. He is a gazetted officer of the Punjab Government. He had no previous animosity with the appellants. He had no motive to testify falsely in this case. His deposition, during cross examination, also could not be shattered. He asked Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) and Salman (non appellant) as to who had committed the murder of Champa on 22.10.2004, but they did not give any satisfactory reply to his query. On 07.11.2004, when Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11) was present in the area of his in-laws house, then appellants nos. 1 and 2 and their accomplices (non appellants) came to him and made extra judicial confession that they are being suspected of commission of murder of Champa and they could not run away and they asked Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11) to help them and produce them before the Court.

¶183

So, Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11) testified that Sukhdev Kundlana (appellant No.2) told him that on the intervening night of 20/21.10.2004, he (appellant No.2) and Salman (non appellant) brought Champa to their room and she was asked to change her clothes and to wear clothes of a male and she obliged and changed her clothes in order to disguise her identity as a female and then Salman (non appellant) told that he took Champa to the tubewell motor of Darbara Singh in the area of village Panchhat and left Salman (non appellant) there and went to bring Kishori (non

¶184

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶185

¶186

appellant) and Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) and brought them to the tubewell motor where all the four committed rape with Champa throughout the night and she was kept there incessantly for four nights and then Champa expressed her desire that she be sent to Chandigarh, failing which, she would raise alarm and disclose Tejinder Pal Singh about the incident and that threat frightened the appellants and they took Champa to another motor in the area of village Narur, where again appellants and their accomplices committed rape with Champa at that motor and then both the appellants committed the murder of Champa and threw her corpse in the water tank. So, Sukhdev Kundlana ( appellant No.2) told Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11) that he and Ramu (appellant No.1) had committed the murder of Champa.

¶187

Ramu Kundlana (appellant No.1) also repeated the same story to Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11). Salman and Kishori (non appellants) also made extra judicial confessions regarding commission of rape upon Champa but of not committing her murder.

¶188

On 07.11.2004, both the appellants made extra judicial confession before Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11) regarding commission of rape upon Champa deceased and later commission of her murder. The learned trial Court rightly observed that Ravinder Pal Singh, BDPO, Mamdot (PW11) being a gazetted officer and brother-in-law of Tejinder Pal Sijngh (PW8) used to come to his house and appellants nos. 1 and 2 met him there and they reposed faith in him and made a disclosure statement of their guilt before him. Other circumstances of this case also corroborate the extra judicial

¶189

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶190

¶191

confession made by the appellants before Ravinder Pal Singh. The extra judicial confession made by the appellants have been proved to be voluntary, without any threat or coercion. View taken by the learned trial Court in this regard cannot be said to be perverse.

¶192

Learned trial Court rightly placed reliance upon Vinayak Shivji Raj Pole v. State of Maharashtra, 1998(1) RCC 677 (S.C), State of Uttar Pradesh v. M.K.Anthony AIR 1985 (SC) 41, Manguli Devi v. State of Orissa AIR 1989 (SC) 483, Piara Singh & others v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 (SC) 2274, State of Bihar v. Anirudh Thakar 1998(1) RCC 683 (SC), Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana 1991 Criminal Court Judgments 197 (SC) and Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 122, and on the basis of these rulings rightly concluded that extra judicial confession needs no corroboration in every case and in view of these rulings, learned trial Court rightly concluded that the extra judicial confessions made by the appellants before Ravinder Pal Singh (PW11) are reliable and inspire confidence. This view taken by the learned trial Court also does not suffer from perversity.

¶193

Champa was employed as maid servant of Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8), but the latter did not lodge any police report with regard to her dis-appearance. But this circumstance alone was not suffice for rejection of the prosecution version, as he may be making efforts to trace the deceased and simply that he could not lodge the missing report about Champa was not suffice for rejection of the prosecution case. During cross examination of Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8), a suggestion was put to him that since his wife was in a family way, he

¶194

CRA No.815-DB of 2005

¶195

¶196

was unable to control his urge for sex and due to this reason, he developed illicit relations with Champa and when she raised cry, her murder was committed. This suggestion was denied by Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8). No evidence was brought on record that Tejinder Pal Singh had illicit relations with Champa and he committed her murder. Learned trial Court regarding this, rightly observed that mere suggestion does not take the shape of proof nor can be conclusively decisive of the matter in controversy. So, this plea taken up by the appellants during cross examination of Tejinder Pal Singh (PW8) remained unproved and no benefit thus, could be drawn by them, therefrom. This view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be held to be perverse.

¶197

So, it follows that the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order of sentence rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants nos. 1 and 2. There is thus, no ground to interfere, therein.

¶198

Resultantly, the appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.

¶199

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

¶200

August 29, 2012 mamta

Ramu Kundlana & Anr. v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Kundlana & Anr. 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

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Pohla Singh Vs Sukhjinder Singh @ Chhinder and Ors.

Gurjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Parmod Kumar Vs Har Parkash & Ors.

State of Punjab Vs Ajay Kumar and Anr.

Bachi Devi Vs State of Punjab