Allowed

Baljit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2014CRA-D/176/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against a murder conviction. Finding deficiencies in prosecution evidence regarding the last-seen instance, extrajudicial confession, and motive, the single judge classified set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant. Bail bonds were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds discharged.

Baljit Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003 Date of Decision : December 08, 2014

Baljit

.....Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. SHEKHER DHAWAN

¶9

Present : Mr. Atul Bhatia, Advocate.

¶10

Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional A.G., Haryana.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶12

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13/15.1.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Panipat, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶13

According to the prosecution, Surjit s/o Giasi Ram of village Raipur made statement Ex.PK before ASI Rajender Kumar on 4.12.1998 at 3.00 p.m. at Garh Shahjahanpur turning near Sector 15, Sonepat to the effect that there was land belonging to the Panchayat of his village situated at a distance of about one km. from the village where there was a jungle of kikkar. The villagers used to go there for grazing their cattle. On that day, he was informed by Suresh that when

¶14

he went to graze his cattle, he saw the dead body of an unknown SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

-2-

¶16

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶17

person, who appeared to be a Sadhu, lying there. Accordingly, Surjit, alongwith Kanwal Singh, Panch reached the jungle and saw the dead body of an unknown sage aged about 65 years lying there. His face was smeared with blood and there were marks of injuries on his face. Those injuries appeared to have been inflicted by sharp edged weapon. Even the Chadar lying there was found to be blood stained. According to him, the murder seemed to have been committed during the previous night somewhere else and the dead body thrown in the jungle by the culprit.

¶18

Further case of the prosecution is that ASI Rajender Kumar made endorsement Ex.PK/1 on the statement and sent the same to the Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PK/2 under Section 302 IPC was registered on 4.12.1998 at 3.45 p.m. by MHC Satbir Singh. The special report sent, thereafter, was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate on 4.12.1998 at 6.32 p.m.

¶19

During investigation of the case, ASI Rajender Kumar went to the jungle of Kikkar trees and found the dead body lying there. A white Chadar was lying there, which was taken into possession. Blood stained earth was picked up. The blood stained clothes worn by the deceased were taken into possession. Currency notes worth Rs.113/- were also recovered. After preparing inquest report, ASI Rajender Kumar, sent the dead body for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Arun Garg at General Hospital, Sonepat on 5.12.1998, who found 15 injuries on the dead body and the cause of death was given as shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple

¶20

SATISH KUMAR injuries. It was also opined that the possible time that elapsed 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶22

-3-

¶23

between injuries and death was within half an hour and between death and post-mortem 24 to 48 hours.

¶24

It is also the case of the prosecution that on 18.12.1998, Inspector Ram Sarup took over the investigation. He showed the photograph of the deceased sage, who was found murdered in the jungle in village Raipur. Amar Singh s/o of Harphool of village Farmana identified the dead body from the photo as well as the clothes to be that of his brother Fateh Singh. To the same effect was the statement of Baba Charan Dass. On 24.12.1998, one Lilu Ram, who had already retired as an ASI produced the appellant before the police and also made statement to the effect that the appellant had confessed to him about committing the murder of a Baba by giving injuries with his Chimta on the night intervening 3/4.12.1998 in the jungle of village Raipur. The appellant had further confessed that he had committed the murder of the Baba as the Baba had molested his wife. On 25.12.1998, Inspector Ram Sarup interrogated the appellant, who suffered disclosure statement, pursuant to which, Chimta Ex.P1, locket Ex.P2, Kurta Ex.P3, Dhoti Ex.P4, Langot Ex.P5, socks Ex.P8, thread Ex.P10, locket Ex.P11, Mala Ex.P12 and Juttis Ex. P9 were got recovered. Similarly, Dharam Pal @ Pala of village Bhapra and Ms. Sangeeta of village Jaurasi Khalsa got recorded their respective statements that they had last seen the appellant and deceased Fateh Singh together. On conclusion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by SI Ram Chander, SHO Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, which was submitted in the Court. This was followed by commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions where

¶25

SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

-4-

¶27

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶28

charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶29

In support of its case the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Arun Garg, PW2 Constable Tejbir, PW3 Amar Singh, PW4 Baba Charan Dass, PW5 Ms. Sangeeta, PW6 ASI Rajender Kumar, PW7 Ved Singh, PW8 Surjit, PW9, Rakesh Kumar, PW10 Dharampal @ Pala, PW11 Ramphal, PW12 Zile Singh, PW13 Lilu Ram, PW14 SI Ram Chander, and PW15 Inspector Ram Sarup.

¶30

The plea of the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was of innocence and false implication in the case. In defence, he examined DW1 Karam Singh.

¶31

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant for committing murder of Fateh Singh on the intervening night of 3/4.12.1998 in the Kikkar jungle of village Raipur. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.

¶32

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the evidence with their able assistance.

¶33

PW3 Amar Singh has deposed before the trial Court that on 21.12.1998 he was shown photographs of his deceased brother Fateh Singh and his clothes and from them he identified the dead body to be of his brother. He also testified that prior to 21.12.1998, his brother Fateh Singh had become a sage and left the house. PW4

¶34

SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶36

-5-

¶37

Baba Charan Dass also testified that he identified the dead body to be that of Fateh Singh from the photographs shown by the police to him. Therefore, it stands established that the dead body, which was recovered by the police on 4.12.1998 from the jungle in the area of village Raipur, was that of Fateh Singh, who had renounced the world and used to move around as a sage.

¶38

The prosecution made an attempt to show that before his murder, deceased Fateh Singh was seen in the company of the appellant. In that regard, the prosecution examined PW5 Ms. Sangeeta d/o Hari Dutt of village Jaurasi Khalsa. However, she testified that though the appellant belonged to her village and one Baba also used to live in her village yet she did not know him by face. She also stated that she did not see him with the appellant. As the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, learned Public Prosecutor got her declared hostile and during her crossexamination, confronted her with statement Ex.PH, which she had earlier made before the police but she stated that she had not made any such statement to the police. The other witness regarding last seen was PW10 Dharam Pal @ Pala, who testified that he had seen the appellant and deceased Fateh Singh taking liquor by the side of his shop in village Bhapra, which was located on the corner of the temple. He further stated that Fateh Singh was a regular visitor to that temple and, accordingly, he knew him. Further, after taking liquor both, the appellant and the deceased, went away. The appellant had proclaimed that he was taking the deceased to the house of his sister. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the police had recorded

¶39

SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶41

-6-

¶42

his statement after more than one month of the day on which the appellant and the deceased had taken liquor at his kiosk. He also stated that he had told the police about the appellant declaring that he would be taking the deceased to his sister's house but was successfully confronted with his statement Ex.DA, wherein it was not so recorded. He further testified that he had learnt for the first time about the death of Fateh Singh when the police had contacted him in this case after about a month and quarter of the day on which the appellant and the deceased had taken liquor at his kiosk. As is apparent from the record, the statement Ex.DA of Dharam Pal @ Pala was recorded on 18.12.1998. Going by his assertion that he had seen the appellant and the deceased together at his kiosk, one month earlier, he must have seen the appellant with the deceased on or about 18.11.1998. From the medical evidence by way of testimony of PW1 Dr. Arun Garg, it is made out that the murder of Fateh Singh was committed 24 to 48 hours earlier to 5.12.1998 when he had conducted the post-mortem, meaning thereby, the murder was committed on the night intervening 3/4.12.1998. There being a long gap between the time when Dharam Pal @ Pala had allegedly seen the appellant in the company of the deceased and the time when the murder was committed, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant and the deceased stayed together till the time the murder was committed. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW10 Dharam Pal @ Pala regarding the appellant last seen with the deceased.

¶43

PW13 Lilu Ram, retired ASI was projected by the

¶44

SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

-7-

¶46

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶47

prosecution to be the one before whom the appellant had made extra-judicial confession of having killed the deceased with his Chimta on the intervening night of 3/4.12.1998. The appellant had also disclosed to him that as the deceased had molested his wife, he had committed his murder. However, in his cross-examination, this witness stated that the appellant was not known to him earlier. He also stated that the appellant had come to him with one more person whose name he did not know although he was known to him for the last 3/4 years when he was posted in Police Station Ganaur and at that time, that other person used to come to him. If the appellant was not known to Lilu Ram earlier, there was no occasion for him to appear before him and confess about committing the murder of Fateh Singh. Moreover, if the appellant had come alongwith the one, who may have been known to this witness when he was posted in Police Station Ganaur, Inspector Ram Sarup, before whom this witness had produced the appellant, was expected to record his statement or atleast made a mention of the said fact while testifying before the trial Court. In his examination-in-chief, PW15 Inspector Ram Sarup only stated that on 24.12.1998 the appellant was produced before him by Lilu Ram and after recording the statement of said Lilu Ram, he arrested the appellant. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of PW13 Lilu Ram regarding the extra-judicial confession.

¶48

It is the case of the prosecution that after the appellant was arrested on 24.12.1998, he was interrogated by Inspector Ram Sarup on 25.12.1998. During his interrogation, the appellant suffered

¶49

SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶50

-8-

¶51

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶52

disclosure statement, pursuant to which he got recovered various articles, as mentioned above. However, PW12 Zile Singh admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was his first cousin. He also testified that he had been summoned to CIA Headquarters by the police for being joined in the investigation. He further testified that some publicmen were standing outside during the interrogation of the appellant for 10/15 minutes but none of them was found willing to join the investigation. Fact remains that being the first cousion of the deceased, PW12 Zile Singh was an interested witness. Moreover, various articles said to have been got recovered by the appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement were of no use to the appellant. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the prosecution that the appellant was found in possession of various articles belonging to the deceased.

¶53

The testimony of PW8 Surjit is innocuous as he simply stated about noticing the dead body of Fateh Singh in the jungle of his village and had, thereafter, made statement Ex.PK before SI Rajender Kumar. In his testimony, this witness made no mention about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime.

¶54

As regards the motive set up by the prosecution that the deceased had molested the wife of the appellant, the prosecution produced PW11 Ramphal of village Jaurasi Khalsa before the trial Court. However, he stated that he did not know much about the case. He also did not know the manner in which the deceased was killed or

¶55

who had murdered him. He further testified that he had never seen SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶56

Criminal Appeal No.D-176-DB of 2003

¶57

-9-

¶58

the appellant with the deceased at any point of time. As the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor but he denied making any statement to the police in regard to the motive which might have impelled the appellant to commit the murder of Fateh Singh.

¶59

Apart from the aforementioned material on the file, the remaining witnesses of the prosecution are only police officials, Patwari and a photographer. With the type of evidence brought on the record, as discussed above, the testimonies of these official witnesses do not prop up the case of the prosecution and convince the Court about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of murder of Fateh Singh. In any case, the benefit of doubt deserves to be extended to the appellant.

¶60

Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge against him.

¶61

The appellant is on bail. The bonds furnished by him and his surety/sureties are discharged.

¶62

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶63

December 08, 2014 satish

¶64

( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) JUDGE

¶65

SATISH KUMAR 2015.03.11 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Baljit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Binder Pal @ Binder Vs State of Punjab

Anoop Singh Vs Bagga Singh& Ors.

Simranjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mange Ram Vs State of Haryana & Anr.