CHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of appellant No. 1 Chattar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'A-l') for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 and Section 498A, IPC. Different sentences were imposed for the said offences. Appellant-Mange Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'A-2') was convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court as also the sentences for both the appellants.

(2.) Background facts giving rise to the prosecution are as follows : A young girl, namely, Guddi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') aged about 26 years, belonged to village Nimly in district Bhiwani in Haryana. Her marriage was performed with Chattar Singh, A-1, son of Mange Ram, A-2 of village Sahlawas, in district Rohtak, in the year 1990. Both the families are agriculturists. A daughter, namely, Poonam (deceased No. 2) was born from this wedlock. Dead bodies of Guddi and that of the infant daughter Poonam in the posture that the latter was in the armpit of Guddi were found in a well of village Sahalwas on the morning of 17.2.1993. Jeet Singh, father of the deceased made an application Ex. PO on 16.2.1993, a day earlier that his daughter was missing, before SI Ashok Kumar, PW-12, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Sahlawas and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PN was recorded. On 17.2.1993 he inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PCC. He got the dead bodies of the deceased photographed by Varinder Singh, Photographer, P.W. 14. Exs.PJJ/1 to 8 are the photographs and Exs.PJJ/9 to 14 and Exs.PZ/7 and 8 are their negatives. Zile Singh, P.W.9, also took photographs Exs. PZ/ 7 to 12 and the negatives are Exs.PZ/1 to 6. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest reports Exs. PB and PD. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of dead bodies Ex. PDD. The dead bodies were taken out from the well and were despatched for post-mortem. On 28.2.1993, Chattar Singh and Mange Ram-accused were produced by Babu Lal, Sarpanch of the village before the Investigating Officer who were arrested. On interrogation by the Investigating Officer on 1.3.1993, Chattar Singh-accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PFF and in pursuance thereof got recovered Chuni (Scarf) from the specified place which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PFF/1. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PFF/2 of the place of recovery. However, the statement made by Jeet Singh, P.W.3, the father of the deceased contained the allegations that Chattar Singh (husband) and Mange Ram (father-in-law) of the deceased as well as Rajesh and Vijay Singh along with their wives Bimla and Bala respectively who were maltreating his daughter were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as a part of dowry and only on fulfilment of that condition the daughter could remain in peace. He allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from one Badan Singh, P.W.8, and paid the amount to the accused persons. He also claimed that he gave various other amounts, valuables and articles on various occasions and it was, therefore, that since this amount was given at least 25 days earlier to the occurrence, after the birth of the child when Guddi had stayed only for a short period prior to the occurrence at the place of her in-laws. So, there was one version of the complainant, father of the deceased, that the dispute which led to the death of the deceased was the demand of dowry. However, during further investigation of the case, it transpired that extra-judicial confession was allegedly made by Chattar Singh and Mange Ram-accused that they were suspecting illicit relation of the deceased Guddi with some person and that she had conceived a child from that person and the child was delivered at her parents' place. Therefore, on account of that stigma being cast on the family of the accused, they did not think that it was befitting their prestige that Guddi should be allowed to stay with them and they have done her and the infant child to death and asked the Sarpanch Babu Lal to help them in the matter. A similar extra-judicial confession was allegedly made before Dial Singh, P.W.5, Om Singh, P.W.6 and Ms.Viney Bhardwaj, P.W.10, a Reader in the Department of History who was the Secretary of one Manila Dakshita Samiti and the Samiti had approached the accused persons in the village where Mange Ram made an extra-judicial confession that his son Chattar Singh had done the deceased to death, because of infidelity of the deceased. The post-mortem on the dead body of Guddi was performed by Dr. Vijay Pal Khanagwal, P.W. 1, on 19.2.1993 at 9.00 a.m. and he found the following injuries on the dead body :

(3.) The primary stand in appeal was that the circumstances do not present a complete chain. The High Court noted that the trial Judge believed the evidence of extra-judicial confession against appellant No. 1 that he had smothered his wife and child and managed to throw the dead bodies in the well and came to the conclusion that he along with father Mange Ram also maltreated and harassed the deceased with cruelty. The trial Judge had, therefore, rightly recorded conviction. It was also averred before the High Court that Guddi was missing from the house since morning of 16.2.1993 and on making report to that effect, her dead body along with the dead body of child were found in the well. It was also submitted that it was not a case of smothering and death was due to asphyxia as stated by PW-1, the doctor and the injury on the person of the deceased could be the result of the deceased having fallen in the well. The version of the accused persons that the deceased left the house around 6.00 a.m. was also falsified by the fact that semi digested food was found in her intestine. It was also pleaded that one of the witnesses to the alleged extra-judicial confession supported the case of the defence and not the prosecution. The High Court noticed that the extra-judicial confession before PW-10 was most relevant. She had no animus against anyone whatsoever. The evidence of PWs-5 and 6 was also believed so far as extra-judicial confession is concerned. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed the same.