Allowed

Gilli @ Balinder v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2013CRA-D/648/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeals challenging convictions for murder and dowry-related injury. The court found the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete, noted lack of motive, and observed unreliability in key witness statements. The High Court held that reasonable doubts existed, acquitting all appellants.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted of charges; judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellants set at liberty.

Gilli @ Balinder Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

(1) Criminal Appeal No.D-648-DB of 2008

¶3

Date of decision:10.5.2013

Gilli alias Balinder

...Appellant

State of Haryana ....

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

(2) Criminal Appeal No.D-680-DB of 2008

Jagpal and others

...Appellants

State of Haryana

...Respondent ....

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jeyapaul Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶16

.....

¶17

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Jasmer Singh and Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocates for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.D-648-DB of 2008.

¶18

Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for appellant No.1 and Amicus Curiae for appellants No.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.D-680-DB of 2008.

¶19

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶20

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶21

This judgment will dispose of above mentioned two appeals i.e.

¶22

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶23

[2]

¶24

Criminal Appeal No.D-648-DB of 2008 filed by Gilli alias Balinder and Criminal Appeal No.D-680-DB of 2008 filed by Jagpal, Surjit Singh and Sanjay, as these arise out of same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.8.2008/20.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.

¶25

These two criminal appeals have been filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.8.2008/20.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby all the accused-appellants, namely, Gilli alias Balinder, Jagpal, Surjit Singh and Sanjay have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC’). They have been 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 one year each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶26

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.3.2007, a telephonic message was received in Police Station, Sadar Panipat that dead body of Hari Singh resident of Barana was lying in Primary School of Dera Siklighar, Village Barana. SI/SHO Partap Singh along with other Police officials reached the spot for initiating proceedings, where Randhir got recorded his statement. In his statement, complainant Randhir mainly stated

¶27

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶28

[3]

¶29

that Hari Singh son of elder brother of his father (Tau) Nand Lal lives in Village Barana along with his children. There is a Primary School near the Dera of Siklighar of Village Barana and Gilli son of Abdul had constructed a tea shop near the school. Gilli alias Balinder indulged in gambling secretly and his brother Hari Singh used to take tea from Gilli and they had transaction of money with each other regarding gambling. Hari Singh many times had told him that lot of money was due from Gilli and when he demands money, then Gilli threatens to beat him. Yesterday i.e. 12.3.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., his brother Hari Singh was sitting with him and left for Dera Siklighar after talking. After late night his brother did not return to home. Then Meshari wife of Hari Singh came to him and said that after late night Hari Singh did not return to home. On 13.3.2007 at about 7.00 a.m., Sweeper Anguri Devi came in the school for sweeping, who saw that Hari Singh was lying dead in the room and his head was stained with blood. She told the complainant about this. The complainant along with other persons came at the spot and saw that Hari Singh was lying dead in the room of school and his head was stained with blood. Bhim Singh told him that Hari Singh was sitting in the shop of Gilli in the night. Jagpal Saini was also sitting in the shop and they were quarreling with Hari Singh. He thought that it was a matter of transaction of money with each other and they would settle the same themselves. His brother Hari Singh had been thrown in the room of school after killing and dragging in the night by Gilli alias Balinder and Jagpal Singh. It may be possible that some other persons were accompanying them. The statement of the complainant was recorded at

¶30

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶31

[4]

¶32

10.00 a.m. on 13.3.2007 by SI/SHO Partap Singh, Police Station, Sadar Panipat. `Ruqa’ was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.

¶33

The Investigating Officer inspected the spot. Photographs were taken. Inquest proceedings were conducted. The inquest report is Ex.PB/2. ASP and DSP came on the spot for verification. FSL team was also summoned. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Blood was lifted from the school where the dead body was lying and taken into Police possession after converting the same into sealed parcel. Blood was also lifted from the shop of Gilli and the same was put in separate Dibbi' plastic, which was also taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Rough site plan Ex.PV was prepared. On the same day, accusedGilli was arrested, the pant which he was wearing was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. On 14.3.2007, he interrogated accused-Gilli, who made disclosure statement about the Phookni' (iron pipe). Then he produced him in the Court and procured the Police custody. Then he again interrogated accused Gilli, who made disclosure statement regarding concealing of `Phookni' (iron pipe) behind his shop under the heap of dungcakes and then he got recovered the same in pursuance of his disclosure statement. On 14.3.2007, accused-Jagpal Singh was also arrested. Next day, he was interrogated. He made disclosure statement regarding concealing one iron rod and in pursuance of the disclosure statement he got recovered the same which was taken into Police possession after preparing a sealed parcel. Other accused were also arrested. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, the challan was

¶34

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶35

[5]

¶36

filed in the Court.

¶37

On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellants Gilli alias Balinder, Jagpal, Surjit Singh and Sanjay, framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the above charges and claimed trial.

¶38

To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Randhir complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 Bhim Singh, who had last seen Hari Singh (deceased) in the shop of Gilli, mainly deposed that on 12.3.2007, he along with Phool Singh and Dhanni were coming after doing labour and were going to their houses. On that day, at about 10.00 p.m., they reached near the Dera of Siklighar. They heard noise coming from the shop of accused Gilli. The shutter of the shop was open. They heard the voice of Hari Singh (deceased), who was saying “Maar dia – Maar dia” (being killed – being killed). They peeped in the shop through hole and saw accused Gilli, Jagpal, Surjit and Sanjay along with Hari Singh (deceased) in the said shop. They were making noise after consuming liquor. He asked from accused-Gilli as to why they were making noise, upon which Gilli replied that they had dealing in between them and they have no concern with them and he told them to go away. Thereafter, they went to their respective houses. After that, in the midnight PW Randhir came to him and he asked him about the whereabouts of Hari Singh, upon which he told PW Randhir that he had seen Hari Singh in the company of accused persons in the shop of accused Gilli and they were making noises

¶39

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶40

[6]

¶41

after consuming liquor. Thereafter, they went to the shop of accused Gilli, but none was found present there and they came back. Next day in the morning, he came to know that the dead body of Hari Singh was lying in a room of school situated by the side of Dera Siklighar. He went to the school and found the dead body of Hari Singh lying in a room of the school. There were injuries on the head of Hari Singh. PW-3 Phool Singh is also the witness of last seen. He also deposed as per statement of PW-2 Bhim Singh.

¶42

PW-4 Dr. Rahul Dewan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rohtak mainly deposed regarding conducting post-mortem examination along with Dr. Vandana Sardana on the dead body of Hari Singh and found the following injuries:-

¶43

“1. A triangular shaped lacerated wound of size 5 x 2.4 cm was

¶44

present on the left post auricular area on left mastoid. The wound was bone deep with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶45

Crush injury at left temporo-occipital area of size 7 x 3 cm x bone deep with fractured pieces of skull and dura coming out of wound with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶46

A lacerated wound of size 6 x 2 cm x dura matter deep present on the middle of occipital region of scalp with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶47

A linear lacerated wound 4 cm above left pinna of size 6 x 1 cm x brain deep with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶48

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶49

[7]

¶50

A lacerated wound at left fronto-parietal area of scalp of size 6 x 1 cm x bone deep with underlying dura matter seen.

¶51

A lacerated wound 2 cm above left pinna of size 1.7 x .6 cm x bone deep with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶52

A lacerated wound 4 cm interior to left pinna of size 1 x .5 cm x bone deep with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶53

A linear lacerated wound of size 6 x 1 cm x bone deep present 10 cm above right pinna on right parietal region with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶54

A obliquely placed lacerated wound of size 5 x 1 cm on right parieto-occipital region of scalp 3 cm posterior to injury No.8 with infiltration of clotted blood in surrounding tissues.

¶55

A red abrasion of size 2 x 1.7 cm present in the midline of front of neck 2 cm above sternal notch. On dissection, there was infiltration of blood.

¶56

A red abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm present over the left scapula.

¶57

A red abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm present on the posterior aspect of left elbow olecranon.”

¶58

As per the doctors, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock

¶59

due to injuries described above which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life. PW-5 ASI Suresh

¶60

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc. [8]

¶61

Kumar mainly deposed regarding recording of formal FIR Ex.PA/2 after receiving Ruqa' Ex.PA/1. PW-6 Constable Jagbir Singh, Draftsman deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PC. PW-7 Krishan is Photographer, who mainly deposed regarding photographs Exs.P.4 to P.20. PW-8 ASI Siri Krishan mainly deposed regarding taking blood stains from the places as he was with the Investigating Officer on 13.3.2007. He also deposed regarding the disclosure statement made by accused Gilli that the iron pipe used by him in the occurrence had been kept concealed in the bushes near river in Muzaffarnagar and he could get the same recovered. PW-9 HC Surender Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PG. PW-10 HC Mahabir Singh associated himself with the Investigating Officer in the investigation of this case and deposed regarding the same facts. PW-11 Constable Dalbir Singh mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report. PW-12 Constable Ashok is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PN. PW-13 EHC Dharambir Singh also deposed regarding disclosure statement made by accused Gilli alias Balinder on 14.3.2007 regarding concealing of Phookni' (iron pipe) and recovery of the same from the back side of the shop and then about accused Jagpal's disclosure statement. This witness was got declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor as he was suppressing some material facts. PW-14 SI Partap Singh is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation of the present case.

¶62

At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence

¶63

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶64

[9]

¶65

of the prosecution. They denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused-appellants deposed that they had been falsely implicated in this case.

¶66

In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Vishal alias Kallu, who mainly deposed that they own 7 acres of agricultural land in Village Barana, District Panipat. Out of the aforesaid land, 2 acres is situated on Pundri Barana road and the remaining land is situated on Rana Majra road. They had no land at Garhi Bharat road. DW-2 HC Vinod Kumar mainly brought the summoned record i.e. of daily diary register etc. and the FIR and deposed regarding the same.

¶67

The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment, after going through the evidence and material produced on record convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.

¶68

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the statements of PW-2 Bhim Singh and PW-3 Phool Singh, who are witnesses of last seen, cannot be relied upon as their version being improbable and further they being interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is no strong motive in the present case to commit the crime. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that no weapon was recovered from Surjit Singh and Sanjay and weapons of appellants Gilli and Jagpal have been falsely planted upon them by the Police. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that recovery of blood stained pant worn by appellant Gilli is also falsely planted upon the accused. He also argued that names of Surjit Singh and Sanjay are not there

¶69

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶70

[10]

¶71

in the FIR and the weapons of offence are easily available in the market. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that nobody has seen causing injuries to deceased nor anybody has seen that the dead body was dragged to the school. He argued that chain of circumstances is incomplete and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, he argued that the appeals be accepted accordingly.

¶72

On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by PW-2 Bhim Singh and PW-3 Phool Singh, who have seen deceased and accused together before the occurrence. He also argued that blood stained weapons have been recovered from appellants Gilli alias Balinder and Jagpal in pursuance of their disclosure statements. He further argued that recovery of blood stained pant, which was worn by Gilli, further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Motive was also proved by the PWs. The oral statements have been duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. There being no merit in the appeals, these should be dismissed.

¶73

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

¶74

From the evidence on record, we find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the case of circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances should be complete and there should not be any missing link.

¶75

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶76

[11]

¶77

If all the circumstances put together these should point towards the guilt of the accused only and none else. From the evidence on record, we find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. First of all, in the present case, there is no motive to cause the occurrence. In the case of circumstantial evidence motive assumes significance. In the present case, there is simple statements of PWs that appellants Gilli and deceased have some money transaction regarding gambling. Even as per evidence, Hari Singh (deceased) was having dispute with Gilli regarding money transaction and there is no motive for other appellants to cause any injury to Hari Singh. Secondly, even in the evidence, it is stated by the PWs that Gilli threatened to give beating to Hari Singh if he raised the demand of money. There is no evidence of any type as to how much amount was to be recovered by Hari Singh from Gilli etc. Even if it is taken that there was any dispute between Gilli alias Balinder and Hari Singh regarding money transaction, then as to why Hari Singh would go to his shop and would drink with him there. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that there is no motive to cause the occurrence.

¶78

As regards the statements of PW-2 Bhim Singh and PW-3 Phool Singh, who are witnesses of last seen, we find that their statements does not repose confidence. They are not the truthful witnesses. PW-3 Phool Singh is real brother of complainant Randhir and Bhim Singh is also related to the complainant from the brotherhood. Their version that they came back from the fields after work at 10.00 p.m. otherwise looks unnatural. As per the statements of both these PWs, they were working in the fields from the morning till 8.00 p.m. and it was drizzling for the whole

¶79

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶80

[12]

¶81

day. The version that they took rest for one and a half hours in the fields itself looks unnatural especially when it was drizzling for the whole day. The houses of PW-2 Bhim Singh and PW-3 Phool Singh are at a distance of about one kilometer. The natural conduct would be that both PW-2 and PW3 would like to reach their houses at the earliest. Again the version that they heard the noise of “Maar dia – Maar dia” (being killed – being killed), they peeped through the hole in the shop of Gilli, but when they peeped nobody was giving injuries to Hari Singh. Rather, they were taking liquor and eating. When nobody was giving injuries to Hari Singh, then the question of raising noise “being killed – being killed” does not arise. PW-1 Randhir is the complainant in the present case. As per version given by him in the FIR and also as PW-1, he came to know regarding the death of Hari Singh next morning from sweeper that dead body of Hari Singh was lying in a room of the school. It is nowhere the case of PW-1 Randhir that at night time he was informed by Bhim Singh or Phool Singh that Hari Singh was seen in the Tea shop of Gilli or Randhir went with Bhim Singh and Phool Singh to the Tea shop of Gilli at midnight and no response came after knocking. Therefore, the version given by PW-2 and PW-3 is totally contradictory to this extent with the version given by PW-1 Randhir. PW-1 Randhir has stated in the FIR that Bhim Singh told him on the next day regarding last seen of Hari Singh in the Tea shop of Gilli There is no mention of the name of Phool Singh by him. Next morning when the Police came on the spot and the FIR was registered, Bhim Singh was not present there. Even the Investigating Officer has stated that his name has not been

¶82

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc. [13]

¶83

mentioned in the list of persons present there nor his statement was recorded on that day. Otherwise also, Bhim Singh PW-2 has stated that next day he went to his duty early in the morning. Therefore, it further creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version whether Bhim Singh PW-2 has seen Hari Singh in the Tea shop of appellant Gilli at night time or he informed the complainant in the morning. Even PW-7 Krishan, Photographer in his cross-examination has stated that Bhim Singh was not present there when he had taken the photographs. Even otherwise if Bhim Singh and Phool Singh have seen Hari Singh quarreling with these accusedappellants, then the natural course for them was to inform Randhir or the wife of Hari Singh at that very time. Therefore, from the evidence on record, statements of PW-2 Bhim Singh and PW-3 Phool Singh do not repose confidence and they cannot be held as truthful witnesses.

¶84

As regards the appellants Surjit Singh and Sanjay, their names have not been mentioned in the FIR. No weapon has been recovered from them. No extra-judicial confession was made by any of the appellants/accused. The recovery of blood stained pant from appellant Gilli also looks doubtful. As per PW-7 Krishan, Photographer, he was knowing all the persons of the village and when he took photographs, Gilli alias Balinder was present at the spot. It cannot be believed that he might be wearing the blood stained pant at that time and if he had committed the occurrence, he would remain present at the spot when the Police would come. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that Gilli alias Balinder accused, who was arrested on the same day, was wearing pant having blood stains, looks improbable. As per evidence on record, nobody had seen the

¶85

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶86

[14]

¶87

appellants giving any injuries to Hari Singh (deceased). Nobody had seen appellants dragging body of Hari Singh to Primary School.

¶88

As regards the recovery of `Phookni' (iron pipe) from appellant Gilli alias Balinder and blood stained iron rod from appellant Jagpal also is not sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime. First of all these articles are easily available in the market. Secondly, no witness was joined at the time of recovery of these articles. Thirdly, appellants Gilli and Jagpal earlier got recorded their disclosure statement, but nothing was recovered. Again their disclosure statements were recorded. 'Phookni' (iron pipe) was recovered from the place which is behind the shop. It looks improbable that the Investigating Officer would not inspect the spot carefully near the shop which is stated to be the place of occurrence. If the Investigating Officer would have inspected the spot, then such type of articles could be easily recovered by him. The recovery of iron pipe and iron rod also looks doubtful in the circumstances of the present case.

¶89

As already discussed, there is no strong motive for causing the occurrence and in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance. Further more appellants Jagpal, Surjit Singh and Sanjay have no motive to cause injuries to Hari Singh. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case. Chain of circumstances is not complete. It does not point towards the guilt of the accused only and none else. Therefore, we find that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants by leading cogent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶90

Therefore, finding merit in the appeals, Criminal Appeal No.D-

¶91

Cr. A. Nos.D-648-DB of 2008 etc.

¶92

[15]

¶93

648-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.D-680-DB of 2008 are allowed and appellants Gilli alias Balinder, Jagpal, Surjit Singh and Sanjay are acquitted of the charges framed as against them. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court are set aside. They be set at liberty forthwith, if their custody is not required in connection with any other case.

¶94

(M. Jeyapaul) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge

¶95

May 10, 2013.

¶96

hsp

Gilli @ Balinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gilli @ Balinder v. State of Haryana

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

Mukhtar Masih Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Purshotam Lal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Palwinder Singh Oberoi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.