Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab

DARSHAN SINGH .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2009

JUDGMENT

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 19 th February, 2009 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in an appeal

filed by the three appellants is subject matter of challenge in the

present appeals. It is admitted at Bar that the appellant Swaran

Kaur died during pendency of the present appeals after she was

released on bail by this Court on 4th October 2010.

2. An FIR was lodged by Jarnail Singh (PW-7) on 28 th March, 2005 at

12:35 pm. He was the member of Nagar Palika, Morinda and had

taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Pritpal Singh, Mohan Singh

sons of Khushal Singh on which he had sown wheat crop. He had

1 also taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Faqir Chand where again

he had sown wheat crop. He stated that the wheat in the land of

Faqir Chand is of small size but the wheat in the land of Pritpal

Singh was 2½ feet in height. He further stated that at about 10:30

am in the morning on that day, he along with Mohinder Singh

Lamberdar (Village Headman) and Hari Pal had gone to his field but

noticed a foul smell emanating from the land of Pritpal Singh near

dump of wheat husk. He noticed a jute bag with maggots around it

and suspected it to be a dead body of a man or a woman. The land

was near the bye-pass that was frequented by people, however, it

was lying closed because of rains. He left Hari Pal and Mohinder

Singh Lamberdar at the spot and went to report the matter to the

Police. Such statement was recorded by Balwant Singh, SHO who

later appeared as PW-15. The investigations were initiated, dog

squad and finger print experts were called at the spot. Case was

registered against unknown persons. Copy of FIR was sent to the

concerned Magistrate.

3. On examination of the body in the inquest proceedings (Ex.PL), one

telephone diary, a plastic bag, a jute bag and ladies wearing cloth

were found. The body was found to be decomposed and could not

be identified. A Dupatta was found around the neck. The

postmortem was conducted on 30th March, 2005. The dead body

was identified by Ujjagar Singh and Kuldeep Singh (PW-13).

4. Dr. Harbhajan Singh (PW-6) along with Dr. Navtejpal Singh and Dr.

2 Gulshan conducted the postmortem and gave their report (Ex.PG).

The Dupatta was found wrapped around the neck with two turns.

No ligature mark was found present but skin over the Hyoid bone

taken for Histopathological examination. The underlying Hyoid

bone was found fractured. The probable time of death was 10 days

between death and postmortem examination. The chemical

examination report (Ex.PH) stated that Aluminum Phosphide

Insecticide was detected in the samples containing parts of small

and large intestine of the deceased. Phosphine, a constituent of

Aluminum Phosphide, was detected in decomposed pieces of liver,

spleen and kidney. Dr. Harbhajan Singh on the request of the

police opined that the cause of death is poisoning due to Aluminum

Phosphide Insecticide, haemorrhage and haemo-thorax due to

injury in the left chest as described in the postmortem report.

5. After completion of the investigations including recording of the

statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 19731, accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh,

Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh were made to stand trial. The

deceased, Surjit Kaur, was mother of accused Avtar Singh. Swaran

Kaur is wife and Jagmohan Singh is son of Avtar Singh. The accused

Darshan Singh was a servant at Avtar Singh’s house.

6. The prosecution story is that Surjit Kaur (deceased) had inherited 5

Bigha of land of Gurmit Singh (other son of deceased) who died

issueless and accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Swaran 1 for short, ‘Code’

3 Kaur were not happy with this inheritance. Out of this land, she

sold 1 bigha and gave the remaining 4 bighas on theka (lease) to

accused Avtar Singh at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per bigha. However,

Avtar Singh had not been paying the lease amount to her.

Panchayats had also been convened over this dispute, where the

four accused threatened the deceased.

7. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 23 rd

May, 2007/26th May, 2007 acquitted Avatar Singh but convicted

Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh.

8. The prosecution relied upon PW-7 Jarnail Singh, on whose

statement the prosecution process was initiated. He deposed that

the investigating officer had recovered one small diary from the

inner pocket of undershirt of the deceased which had some

telephone numbers and was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PM.

PW-8 Jagtar Singh, a milk man, deposed that he kept some acid

with him for checking the fat of milk. He further stated that

accused Swaran Kaur had come to him to get some acid to clean

the rust on a cooking vessel and a toilet seat. She took ½ a bottle

of acid from him. PW-10, Sohan Singh Patwari, had produced the

record of the land of Gurmit Singh inherited by the deceased. He

produced mutation Ex-PR and Jamabandi Ex.PS. PW-11 is Harpal

Singh, the Sarpanch of Village Sahauran. He deposed that the

deceased came to him on 15 th March, 2005 with a grievance that

Avtar Singh had not been paying lease money to her and he should

4 facilitate the payment. He requested Avtar Singh and Swaran Kaur

to give the lease money to Surjit Kaur and they promised to give

the lease money of Rs.2000/- by 20 th March, 2005. He later got to

know that Surjit Kaur had died.

9. The material witness is Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), son-in-law of the

deceased, married to Gurnam Kaur, daughter of Amar Singh about

36 years back. He stated that his mother-in-law Surjit Kaur has

been residing in a room ( Chaubara). Out of 5 bighas of land, she

had sold 1 Bigha of land for Rs.1,02,000/-. Out of sale

consideration, Rs.95,000/- was deposited by her in the Post Office.

The remaining 4 Bigha of land was given on lease to Avtar Singh at

the rate of Rs.4,000/- per Bigha. Since, Avtar Singh was not paying

lease money, there were differences between mother and son. He

deposed that in the month of March, 2005, Swaran Kaur, daughter-

in-law of the deceased informed him that Surjit Kaur had left after

taking Rs.1,000/- from them towards lease money. It was on 29 th

March, 2005, he received a telephone call and also read in the

newspaper that a dead body was found. He identified the dead

body of his mother-in-law which was kept in the mortuary. He

alleged that she has been murdered by Avtar Singh, his wife

Swaran Kaur, his son Jagmohan Singh and one Darshan Singh.

10. Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) has been examined as a person of last

seen. He deposed that on 22nd March, 2005 at about 5:30 am, one

man and one woman came on TVS Motor Cycle and they were

5 carrying a gunny bag. He did not identify the accused in Court. He

read in the newspaper on 28 th March, 2005 that a dead body was

lying on by-pass road.

11. The investigating officer Balwant Singh was examined as PW-15.

He deposed that on 29th March, 2005, Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and

Ujjagar Singh, son-in-laws of the deceased identified the dead body

from clothes as the face was disfigured by pouring acid. Kuldeep

Singh and Ujjagar Singh had named the accused as suspects.

Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted the raids for

arresting the accused. He stated that the accused could not be

traced in village Sahauran and other places. Thereafter, on 30 th

March, 2005, Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) brought the accused

Darshan Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur and got their

statements recorded. He arrested the accused. Further, accused

Swaran Kaur made a disclosure in police custody that she had kept

concealed half empty bottle of acid in her house behind a photo on

a shelf and could get the same recovered. The said acid bottle was

recovered. On 31st March, 2005, he arrested accused Avtar Singh in

a raid conducted in Village Sahauran. Further, on 1 st April, 2005,

accused Jagmohan Singh gave a disclosure statement that he has

kept concealed his TVS Motor Cycle in a room and he could get it

recovered. Thereafter, accused Darshan Singh disclosed that he

had kept a folding iron chair concealed in the house of Avtar Singh

and he could get it recovered. Both the TVS Motor Cycle and folding

iron chair were recovered from the disclosed places and were taken

6 into possession.

12. The prosecution also examined Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) as the

witness of extra-judicial confession. He stated that he was present

in his house on 30th March, 2005. At about 10 am, accused Swaran

Kaur, Jagmohan Singh and Darshan Singh present in the court

came to his house. Swaran Kaur told him that they have committed

a big blunder and that she had put a Dupatta on the neck of her

mother-in-law Surjit Kaur and was strangulated. Darshan Singh

gave a Kursi (chair) blow on the flank of Surjit Kaur when Jagmohan

Singh caught hold of Surjit Kaur by her arms and, as a result

thereof, Surjit Kaur died. Swaran Kaur also told him that she

poured acid on deceased face. The dead body was kept in a gunny

bag and put in a cupboard. Swaran Kaur further stated that the

dead body was taken on a motor cycle for being thrown in the

canal along with Jagmohan Singh. However, when they reached the

bridge there was “Kacha Rasta” (unmetalled path) and because of

the water, the motor cycle could not pass through and they threw

the gunny bag in the fields of wheat. Swaran Kaur also said that

police were looking for them and asked him to produce them

before the police as he was acquainted with the police. Accused

Jagmohan Singh also confessed that a big mistake had been

committed by them and they had killed Surjit Kaur. Darshan Singh

also confessed that he along with Swaran Kaur and Jagmohan

Singh have committed the murder of Surjit Kaur and recounted the

same story. They also disclosed the motive of the murder being

7 that Surjit Kaur was asking for lease money of her land. Further,

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) stated that he produced the accused

before the police on 30th March, 2005. He also stated that prior to

the visit of the accused persons to his house on 30 th March, 2005,

he had no idea about the death of deceased Surjit Kaur. However,

he stated that he does not remember whether he has mentioned

the confessions in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the

Code before the police.

13. The learned trial court relied upon the statement of Bhupinder

Singh (PW-16) and that of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) to convict the

accused Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh.

Learned trial court found that the testimony of Sukhdev Singh (PW-

14) cannot be used to prove the culpability as he could not

establish the identity of those persons in the court. The learned

trial court found that there is no challenge to the testimony of

Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) that deceased Swaran Kaur had been living

alone in a room which shows that she was not living with her son

Avtar Singh and his family in the old age indicating that relations of

the deceased with her son and daughter-in-law were not cordial.

Statement of Harpal Singh (PW-11) Sarpanch was referred to come

to the conclusion that Surjit Kaur approached him complaining non-

payment of lease money by her son Avtar Singh. He came to know

about death of Surjit Kaur from the newspaper reports.

14. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants

8 relying upon the statements of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) and the motive proved by Harpal Singh

(PW-11).

15. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted

that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events so

as to lead only one conclusion that the appellants and the

appellants alone have committed the crime. The evidence of last

seen has not been believed by the trial court. In the absence of

evidence of last seen, the other evidence is of extra judicial

confession. It is argued that extra judicial confession is a weak

evidence and can be made basis of conviction if the person before

whom confession is made appear to be unbiased and not even

remotely inimical to the accused. Reference was made to the

judgment reported as Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra2 and

S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu3.

16. It is also argued that no motive can be attributed to the accused as

the deceased was last seen by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) on 20 th

March, 2005 and as per medical evidence, the probable time of

death is 20th March 2005 or so. It is thus argued that the witness

was the only person who had met the deceased immediately prior

to her death and it is he who has to explain the death of the

deceased. The deceased was staying in Village Behrampur, Village

of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13). Therefore, in the absence of any

2 (2007) 12 SCC 341 3 (2010) 8 SCC 233

9 evidence that deceased was staying in Village Sahauran, the

findings recorded by the courts below are not sustainable. It is also

argued that as per postmortem report (Ex. PJ), cause of death is

poisoning due to Aluminium Phosphide insecticide, haemorrhage

and haemo-thorax, but there is no evidence as to how the poison

was administered nor there was any recovery of poison. It is

contended that if the death was due to strangulation, poison in the

body negates the prosecution story. It is also argued that a

fracture of Hyoid bone does not necessarily mean strangulation. He

placed reliance upon Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra4 and Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan5 as to how

the circumstantial evidence can be made basis for conviction and

that none of the circumstances are satisfied by the prosecution.

17. On the other hand, Ms. Gogia, learned counsel for the State argued

that though the evidence of last seen has not been accepted but

the fact remains that the statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) is

relevant to the extent that he had seen one man and a woman on

TVS Motorcycle though he could not identify the person who were

riding on such motorcycle. Still further, Harpal Singh (PW-11), the

Sarpanch had deposed in respect of motive of the offence as the

deceased had inherited the property of Gurmit Singh, her other son

who died issueless. It is the share of the property of Gurmit Singh

which became the point of conflict inasmuch as the said land was

given on lease by the deceased to her other son Avtar Singh.

4 (1984) 4 SCC 116 5 2019 SCC OnLine 39

10 Surjit Kaur had even approached Sarpanch for non-payment of

lease money by the accused. Learned counsel for the State also

refers to the statement of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), son-in-law of the

deceased to the effect that she was living separately and not with

her son and daughter-in-law. He deposed about the inheritance of

land of Gurmit Singh and lease of land to Avtar Singh at the rate of

Rs.4,000/- per Bigha. In cross-examination, he stated that Gurmit

Singh died in the year 2003. He also stated that deceased was first

married to Bant Singh and her second marriage was with Amar

Singh. She had a girl child from her first marriage. Ujjagar Singh is

the husband of that girl. The statement of Ujjagar Singh was also

recorded in the Police Station identifying dead body of the

deceased. Further, Kuldeep Singh states that on 29 th March, 2005,

he received a telephone call and read in the newspaper that a dead

body has been found giving description of the body and the

clothes. He identified the dead body as that of his mother-in-law.

In cross-examination, he deposed that on 20 th March, 2005, Surjit

Kaur had not come to his house (in Village Behrampur Zimidara)

but he met her in Panchayat, Village Sahauran. He had not gone to

visit in-laws house on 20th March, 2005. He inquired from several

relatives about the availability of Surjit Kaur. He deposed that none

of the accused were present at the time of cremation in the Village

Sahauran and none of Avtar Singh’s children were present at the

time of cremation. Further, a prayer meeting was held after seven

days of cremation on a Sunday, here one son of Avtar Singh along

11 with his younger daughter was present. He further stated that the

deceased had visited his house 25 days prior to the occurrence for

2 days and that he never telephoned her between the time she left

his place till 20th March, 2005, when he met her in the Panchayat at

Village Sahauran. He denied the suggestions that deceased never

went back to Village Sahauran.

18. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that Balwant Singh

(PW-15), Investigating Officer deposed that he opened gunny bag

wherein a dead body of woman was recovered. He got photograph

of the dead body. On further search of the dead body on 29 th

March, 2005, he recovered a small telephone diary which was lying

in the inner side pocket of the undershirt of the dead body and was

having telephone numbers of some persons. Such diary was taken

in possession vide recovery memo Ex- PM. He got published the

photograph and news of the recovery of unidentified dead body of

a woman. He had also tried to contact by calling the numbers

noted in the diary. It was on 29th March, 2005, Kuldeep Singh and

Ujjagar Singh, son-in-laws of the deceased came to the Mortuary

and identified the dead body as that of Surjit Kaur from the clothes

as the face of dead body was dis-figured by pouring acid. The

photographs produced in evidence proves the disfigurement of the

face and that the body could be identified only by the clothes worn

by the deceased. He deposed that he conducted raids for

arresting the accused named by Kuldeep Singh and Ujjagar Singh

but could not found the accused in Village Sahauran. It was on 30 th

12 March, 2005, Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) produced the accused

Darshan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Jagmohan Singh before whom

they have made confessional statements. It was stated that Avtar

Singh has not suffered any extra judicial confession before

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16). On the basis of disclosure statement of

Swaran Kaur (Ex- PZ), empty half bottle of acid was recovered from

her house.

19. Learned counsel for the State relies upon judgment of this Court

reported as Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh6 to contend

that the evidence of extra judicial confession need not in all cases

be corroborated. It was held as under:

“14. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204, this court after referring to Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated.”

20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in

the present appeals.

21. Gurmit Singh, other son of deceased, passed away in 2003. The

deceased inherited his share of land. Out of the 5 Bighas of land so

inherited, she sold 1 Bigha for Rs.1,02,000/- whereas she leased

6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730

13 the remaining 4 Bighas to her other son, Avtar Singh. The lease

money was not being paid to her and this fact has been stated by

Sarpanch (Harpal Singh) (PW-11) and also by Kuldeep Singh (PW-

13), the son-in-law of the deceased. The lease money was the only

source of survival of the old woman who was living in a separate

room and not with her son, Avtar Singh. Harpal Singh (PW-11) has

also deposed that only a sum of Rs.1,000/- had been paid with a

promise to pay another sum of Rs.1,000/- later. It, thus, transpires

that the deceased was living separately and was not being paid the

lease money which was necessary for her survival.

22. Further, the appellants were not found in the village soon after the

occurrence as deposed by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and investigating

officer Balwant Singh (PW-15). They did not attend the cremation

or the prayer ceremony which was held after one week. The

conduct of the appellants of not being available in the village is a

strong circumstance of their conduct post death.

23. There is no evidence led by the prosecution of administering

Aluminum Phosphide but the postmortem report indicates fracture

of Hyoid bone. As per postmortem report, the Dupatta around the

neck of the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman,

more so, for a woman of the age of deceased. The argument that

no ligature mark was found on the deceased is of no relevance as

the body had been infected with maggots. Therefore, the ligature

mark on the soft tissue would not have survived.

14

24. Furthermore, the bottle of acid was recovered on the basis of

disclosure made by accused Swaran Kaur. The photographs that

were taken showed disfigurement of the face of the deceased.

Such disfigurement was caused by pouring of acid with intention to

avoid identification of the dead body.

25. Although the witness (PW-14) of last seen could not identify the

appellants, but the fact remains that he identified that a jute bag

was thrown by a man and a woman who came on a TVS

Motorcycle. Therefore, even though the witness could not identify

the appellants in court as the persons who had thrown the jute bag,

the fact that the jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman on a

TVS motorcycle is relevant in chain of events in support of the

prosecution case.

26. Another argument raised by Mr. D.P. Singh which needs mention is

that Darshan Singh is not a member of family and has no motive in

the commission of crime. It is observed that Darshan Singh was

convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made before

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16). In the extra-judicial confession, Darshan

Singh has deposed that he has given a Kursi (Chair) blow on the

flank of Surjit Kaur. The postmortem report (Ex. PJ) shows fracture

of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture

of the 6th and 7th rib. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made

by Darshan Singh is also supported by medical evidence. Further,

Darshan Singh had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a

15 folding iron chair in house of Avtar Singh, the said chair was

recovered. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances

to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged.

27. In view of the evidence led and the finding recorded by the Courts

below, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accord-

ingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The sentence of the appel-

lants were suspended by this Court. They shall now surrender to

undergo the remaining sentence.

.............................................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 06, 2019.

16