BHINDA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts: @INPARA = On 4.8.1986 Lachman Singh (PW -2) and informed him that Chanan Kaur was lying on her bed but was not speaking. Pritam Singh (PW -2) who was the nephew of Chanan Kaur then went to her house along with Gurdial Singh (PW -3) Niranjan Singh and Lachman Aforesaid and saw her lying dead on the cot in the courtyard. As she was a patient of diabetes and high blood pressure. Pritam Singh thought that she had died due to these factors and after informing his cousins Assa Singh and Mohan Singh, dead body of Chanan Kaur was cremated. On 9.8.1986, Sarwan Singh (PW -11) came to Pritam Singh and told him that he had - pledged some jewelery with Chanan Kaur deceased for Rs. 2,000/ - on which Pritam Singh and others went to her house, broke open the almirah and found that it was empty. Pritam Singh also opened the iron box lying in the room and found that a double barrel gun and a tape recorder were also missing. On 13th August, 1986 Kishan Singh (PW -7) informed Gurdial Singh that all the accused had been seen roaming near the house of Chanan Kaur deceased on the night intervening 3/4th August, 1986 and on the basis of this information Pritam Singh summoned all the accused on 14th August, 1986 in the presence of Assa Singh, Gurdial Singh, Mohan Singh, Hazura Singh, Pakkar Singh and Chuhar Singh. The accused confessed in their presence that they had gone to commit a robbery in the house of Chanan Kaur, but they had committed her murder as well and that some articles that had been stolen by them at the time of the murder were in their possession. On receipt of this information, Pritam Singh went to the Police Station on the next day and lodged the first information report . The accused were arrested on 24th August, 1986 and were interrogated in the presence of Pritam Singh and Sarwan Singh PWs and they made various disclosure statements which led to the recovery of a D.B.B.L. gun Ex. P.1, golden ring Ex. P.2, chain with locket Ex. P.11 . Budhu accused also made disclosure statement and got recovered bangles Exhibits P.3 and P.4 tape recorder E x. P.10, two rings Exhibit P.7 and P.8 and mutter mala Ex. P.5, a pair of ear rings Exhibits P.1 and P.2 and a wrist watch Ex. P.9. The accused were accordingly brought to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 460 and 411 I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined amongst others, Pritam Singh PW.2, Gurdial Singh PW.3, Roshan Lal PW.4, Lachman PW.5, Chuhar Singh PW.6, Kishan Singh PW.7, Amar Chand PW.8, Faqir Chand PW.9, Malkiat Singh PW.10, Sarwan Singh PW.11, Hazura singh PW.12 and ASI Amrik Singh PW.13. After the close of the prosecution case the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and they denied the allegations made against them. All the accused denied their involvement in the incident and Binda accused further suggested that Pritam Singh the first informant was in fact, responsible for the crime and the case had been foisted on them in connivance with the police.

(3.) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that though the first information report was delayed yet all that was required in the circumstances was that the evidence was to he scrutinized with more than normal care and following this principle found that as the matter rested only on circumstantial evidence, it would have to be scrutinized under three heads, that is last seen, extrajudicial confession and recovery of the stolen articles at the instance of the accused. The Court then found that the evidence of last seen given by PW Kishan Singh was a very weak link in the prosecution story as it had not been explained by the prosecution as to why this information was not conveyed to Pritam Singh PW for almost 11 days after the death of Chanan Kaur. The Court also found that the evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession made on 14th August, 1986 did not inspire confidence as the accused had made the confession a day earlier and the accused were not produced before the police on that very day and were allowed to go and even the F.I.R. was lodged the next day. The statement of Faqir Singh PW.9 with regard to the extra judicial confession given by Bhinda and Budhu Ram was also disbelieved for the reason that though some of the accused had made extrajudicial confession a week earlier, Faqir Singh and Pritam Singh had not even exchanged notes on this account. The Court also observed that the prosecution had not been able to establish by cogent evidence as to the identity of the articles that had been stolen from Chanan Kaur's house and it could not therefore be said that they were related to the murder of Chanan Kaur. The Court also found as a matter of fact that it had not even been established that Chanan Kaur had died of strangulation as had been given out by the prosecution on the basis of the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The Court accordingly acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 460 I.P.C., but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. on the ground that the recoveries made from them pertained to stolen articles and this fact had been proved by proper evidence. Hence this appeal.