KASHMIRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by three persons impugning the judgment and order dated 12-01-1994 passed by the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge whereby they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of one Baljit Singh @ Bitta and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000.00 each with a stipulation of six months further rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine.

(2.) DEVOID of voluminous details, the prosecution case is that on January 24, 1986 a dead body of one Baljit Singh s/o Sunder Singh (PW-5) was found lying in a bunga (a temporary storage for fodder) in village Jhangola, within the jurisdiction of Alipur police station, belonging to one Sunder Singh. That dead body was noticed by Sunder Singhs son, Kulwant Singh and on being informed about that, Sunder Singh s/o Pathana, PW-7, went to Alipur police station and informed the police about the discovery of a dead body in his bunga by his son Kulwant Singh. That information was recorded as DD No. 4-A and its copy was handed over to the SHO for enquiry. The SHO of that police station, PW-18, Inspector Raj Mahender Singh, along with Sub-Inspector Manohar, ASI Sita Ram and other staff as also the informant Sunder Singh went to the bunga and found a dead body lying there which was identified to be that of PW-5, Sunder Singhs 19 years old son Baljit Singh, who was also a resident of village Jhingola and had reached the spot on being informed by Kulwant Singh about the recovery of the dead body of his son. Some bleeding injuries were noticed on different parts of the dead body during the inquest proceedings. The skull was noticed to be broken. PW-5 gave his statement to the police on the basis of which a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered by the police at about 11.45 a.m. on 24th January, 1986 vide FIR Ex.PW-2/C. Sunder Singh stated in that statement, Ex.PW-4/A, that the previous evening at about 6 p.m. he was present at his house along with his son Baljit Singh when Bishan s/o Kartar Singh, Kashmir s/o Uttam Singh and Kehri s/o Satnam Singh, all of whom were residents of his village Jhangola and known to him came and asked his son Meeta to come along for a stroll in the fields. His son accompanied them but did not return home during the night. On that day i.e. 24th January, at about 9 a.m. Kulwant s/o Sunder Singh (PW-7) had come to his house and told him that the body of Baljit was lying in their bunga (place for storing toora). Sunder Singh expressed his suspicion that the above-named three persons had, because of the enmity with them due to some on-going land dispute killed his son and thrown the body inside the bunga.

(3.) IN view of the suspicion expressed by the father of the deceased against three persons named in the first information report the police arrested all three of them. During investigation PW-3 Harpal Singh also claimed to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused in the night of 23rd January, 1986 coming from village Jhingola and going towards Yamuna river. The witness also claimed to have heard accused Bishan Singh telling the deceased at that time that he (the deceased) was stealing their illicit liquor kept concealed under the sand and so they had brought him from his house to settle the score with him that day. (That was also alleged to be the motive for the murder). PW-9 Gholu, who was living in a jhuggi on the Yamuna bank near Jhangola village, claimed to have seen the deceased being caught by the accused persons who were armed with lathies at about 8 p.m. on 23rd January, 1986 at a place near his jhuggi and at that time the accused were telling the deceased that since he was stealing their liquor they would settle the score that day. The investigating officer had moved applications before the concerned Magistrate for recording statements of these two witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the application moved for that purpose was assigned (PW-12 Shri H.S.Sharma) did not record their statements as provided under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and instead read over to the witnesses their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and since witnesses stated before the Magistrate that they had nothing more to say except whatever they had stated in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate passed separate orders on the applications of the investigating officer that there was no need of recording their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C.