HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and one Gangia were tried before the Sessions Judge. Jodhpur for the offences of murder, housr trespass and robbery. The scene of the crime was a hutment situation a Jod, that is, pastureland belonging to the Government between the villages of Palasni and Kharia Khurd in Jodhpur District. One Sujan Singh, who was a forest guard, was living in the hutment with his wife Inder Kanwar, three sons Kan Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Roop Singh and his mother Lad Kanwar. On 19th October, 1967, Sujan Singh went to village Thakarise to bring his daughter and he was away from his hutment until 22nd October, 1967. Kan Singh also left the hutment for going to Bimpalur for purchase of Bajra on 21st October, 1967. When he returned to the hutment in the morning of 22nd October, 1967, he was shocked to find his mother Inder Kanwar, his two brothers Shanwar Singh and Roop Singh and his grand-mother Lad Kanwar lying murdered in the hutment. He saw a box lying outside the room and he also found that the shutters of the door of the room were unhinged and were lying inside the room and other household articles were lying scattered. He immediately ran to the village Khari and informed Kanji Panch about the incident and both of them then went to Bislapur and apprised Sarpanch Shri Kishan about what had happened. Shri Kishan asked Kan Singh to return to the hutment and he proceeded to the police station Maha Mandir for the purpose of lodging information with the police. The police arrived at the scene of the crime around midday and started investigation. The police found in the course of investigation that the death of all four persons had taken place as a result of gun-shot injuries and they also came across two articles, one a mirror Ex. 1 and the other a Dibbi Ex. 2, on which certain finger prints were noticed. These finger prints were subsequently got examined by a finger print expert and the evidence established that the finger prints on the mirror Ex. 1 were those of the appellant. It appears that at about 6.30 p.m. on the same day, that is, 22nd October, 1967, one Umed Singh, who is the brother of the appellant, produced the appellant and Gangia before Balbir Singh, Station House Officer, who was investigating into the offence. Both the appellant and Gangia were arrested and at the time of arrest, a shirt worn by the appellant was taken possession of by Balbir Singh as he suspected that there were blood stains on it. The shirt was sent to the Chemical Analyser and the Serologist and their report went to show that the shrit was stained with human blood. Balbir Singh interrogated the appellant whilst he was in custody and in consequence of disclosure alleged to have been made by him, a gun and a bag containing pellets and gun powder were recovered under a heap of sheaves of grass lying in his field known as Ramsariwala and from a heap of chaff, lying of the thrashing floor of that field, a cotton kesla, that is, a bag, containing certain articles was also recovered. The kesla was found to be blood-stained as a result of examination by the Chemical Analyser and the Serologist and the articles in the kesla included inter alia various ornaments which were all subsequently identified by Sujan Singh to be belonging to him. Gangia also made a disclosure statement in consequence of which certain recoveries were made but since the case of Gangia is not before us, it is not necessary to refer to the same. The appellant and Gangia were, on the basis of this material, put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and the learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of this material, held the appellant guilty of the offence of theft in respect of the articles in the kesla and convicting him under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, but acquitted him so far as the offence of murder of Inder Kanwar, Lad Kanwar, Bhanwar Singh and Roop Singh was concerned. Gangia was acquitted of both the offences by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The State preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in so far as it acquitted the appellant of the offence of murder and Gangia of both the offences. The High Court affirmed the acquittal of Gangia but so far as the appellant was concerned, the High Court took the view that the circumstances established in the case clearly and unmistakably pointed to the guilt of the appellant in so far as the murders of Inder Kanwar, Lad Kanwar, Bhanwar Singh and Roop Singh were concerned, and accordingly set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him of the offence under Section 302 sentence him to imprisonment for life. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

(3.) Now, if we closely analyse the judgment of the High Court, it will be apparent that the High Court has relied only on three circumstances for the purpose of reversing the acquittal of the appellant in so far as the offence of murder is concerned. These three circumstances are, first the recovery of kesal containing ornaments and other articles belonging to Sujan Singh in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant; secondly, the recovery of bloodstained shirt from the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest; and thirdly, the presencce of the finger prints of the appellant on the mirror Ex. 1. We shall presently examine these three circumstances but before we do so, we may refer briefly to the recovery of the gun and the pellets and gun powder as a result of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. The recovery of these articles was assailed on behalf of the appellant, but for the purpose of the present discussion, we shall assume that this recovery was genuine, particularly since it has not been doubted either by the High Court or by the Sessions Court. But this recovery does not in any way help the prosecution, because the evidence of the ballistic expert was that it was not possible for him to say whether the gun powder and pellelts recovered from the place of occurrence or from the dead bodies of Bhanwar Singh and Inder Kanwar had actually been fired from the gun seized as a result of the disclosure by the appellant. This circumstance of recovery of the gun and the pellets and gun powder was, therefore, rightly not relied upon by the High Court, even though it reversed the acquittal of the appellant. The only circumstances which, in the result, require to be considered are the three mentioned above.