Ranjit Singh vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 4386 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Hearing & Decision: 8th September, 2011
+         Crl. A. No.105/1998

          RANJIT SINGH                                               ..... Appellant
                                  Through:       Ms. Nandita Rao, Amicus Curiae

                         versus
          STATE                                                       ..... Respondent
                                  Through:       Mr. Sanjay Lau, APP for the State.


          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

          1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
             allowed to see the Order?                                Yes
          2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   Yes
          3. Whether the Order should be reported
             in the Digest?                                           Yes

                                      JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Ranjit Singh (the Appellant) faced trial (in Sessions Case No.137/97) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). By the impugned judgment he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant was to suffer further imprisonment for 10 days. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal.

2. On the intervening night of 07-08.06.1994 at about 11:30 PM Sardul Singh (the deceased) knocked on Amarjit Singh's (PW-1) door. When PW-1 opened it, he found Sardul Singh standing in front of the door smeared with blood. Smt. Prem Kaur (PW-2) the deceased's mother and Balbir Kaur (PW-4 and PW-1's wife) also arrived near the door. Sardul Singh then informed that Ranjit Singh had taken him to his house and offered him liquor. Both of them took liquor after

which Ranjit Singh inflicted injuries on his person. Saying this Sardul Singh fell down and succumbed to his injuries in the Gali, in front of the door of the house. PW-1 raised an alarm attracting his neighbours Manmohan Singh (PW-3) and Karan Singh. All three of them (PW-1, PW-3 and Karan Singh) went to Ranjit Singh's house and enquired the reason for causing injuries on Sardul Singh. Ranjit Singh informed them that Sardul Singh was taught a lesson as he (Sardul Singh) had destroyed his family.

3. In the meanwhile DD No.49A (Ex.PW-14/A) lodged in P.S. Badarpur at 11:45 PM was assigned to Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash (PW-14). He along with Constable Ashwani reached the spot and found Sardul Singh's dead body lying in front of House No.49, Molarband Extension, Badarpur. The SI noted injuries on Sardul Singh's neck. He found blood lying at the spot as also on the cot (in the Appellant's house) and in the passage connecting PW-1's house to the Appellant's house. The IO sent Sardul Singh's dead body to the mortuary. He recorded Amarjit Singh's statement Ex.PW-1/A and sent it to the Police Station for registration of case. The SI lifted the bottle containing 150 ml of liquor, two empty tumblers, blood stained earth and earth control. The Appellant was arrested. The Appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/C and offered to get the weapon of offence recovered from Gurgaon canal. The knife, however, could not be recovered. On postmortem examination Dr. Alpana Sinha (PW-9) found four injuries on the deceased's neck. She opined that injury No.3 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

4. On completion of the investigation a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. On Appellant's pleading not guilty to the charge the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. PW-1 Amarjit Singh, PW-2 Smt. Prem Kaur, PW-3 Manmohan Singh and PW-4 Smt. Balbir Kaur are the material witnesses for disposal of the appeal as the number and nature of injuries sustained by Sardul Singh is not in dispute.

5. Amarjit Singh PW-1 deposed that Ranjit Singh was his brother-in-law (sister's husband). His behaviour with his sister Meena was bad. He would reach home in

inebriated condition and give beatings to her and the children. On 01.06.1994 at 11:30 PM Sardul Singh knocked the door. He opened the door. His mother (PW-

2) and his wife (PW-4) followed him. They noticed Sardul Singh smeared with blood. He deposed that Sardul Singh informed them that the Appellant had taken him to his house, offered him some liquor and later caused injuries to him. PW-1 deposed that saying this, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

6. PW-2 Smt. Prem Kaur (deceased's and PW-1's mother) deposed that on 07.06.1994 at 11:30 PM Sardul Singh knocked the door saying that he had been stabbed, she woke up. She and Amarjit Singh opened the door, they saw Sardul Singh drenched in blood. Amarjit Singh's wife was also present. Sardul Singh told them that he had been stabbed by Ranjit Singh. He collapsed and succumbed to the injuries. To the same effect is the testimony of PW-4 Smt. Balbir Kaur.

7. PW-3 Manmohan Singh reached the spot on hearing the alarm. He deposed that he Amarjit Singh and Karan Singh went to the Appellant's house. He was sitting on the roof in a drunken condition. On enquiring the reason for inflicting injuries on the deceased the Appellant informed, that they (referring to the deceased's family) had ruined his family life.

8. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the Appellant denied having consumed liquor with the deceased on 07.06.1994 at 11:30 PM. He disputed having made any extra judicial confession to Amarjit Singh and Manmohan Singh. The Appellant pleaded ignorance about the presence of blood in front of Amarjit Singh's house and in his (Appellant's) house. The Appellant also showed his ignorance regarding recovery of any bottle containing liquor and two tumblers from his house. The Appellant gave an explanation that he had three daughters. His wife Meena wanted to keep (adopt) Sumit her elder sister's son. He objected to this on the ground that sufficient room was not available in their home and Sumit did not bear good moral character. In spite of his objection Sumit was kept in the house resulting in sour relations between him and his wife. On 27.05.1994 when he returned to his house, he found it locked. He made enquiries from Amarjit Singh and his mother (PW-1 and PW-2). He wanted to go to the Police

Station but he was threatened and after 6/7 days he was implicated in a false case. The Appellant declined to produce any defence evidence.

9. By the impugned order the Trial Court convicted the Appellant, relying on the dying declaration proved by PWs 1, 2 and 4. The Trial Court repelled the contention raised before the Trial Court that had the Appellant been the culprit, he would not sit at home after committing such a dastardly act and would escape. The arguments made on Appellant's behalf that the Appellant after consuming liquor could not have come down from a wooden ladder too did not find favour with the Trial Court. Non-recovery of weapon of offence was also held to be inconsequential. The Appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

10. We have heard Ms. Nandita Rao, learned counsel for Appellant and Mr. Sanjay Lau, learned APP for the State and have perused the record.

11. It is urged on behalf of Appellant that the prosecution has not produced any independent witness to support the dying declaration. PW-1, 2 and 4 are not consistent on the contents of dying declaration and PW-1 and PW-3's testimonies are contradictory on the factum of making an extra judicial confession by the Appellant.

12. It is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that testimony of a witness should not be believed unless corroborated by an independent witness. Every case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances. There may be cases where independent witnesses are not available as in the present case. According to the prosecution the occurrence and its revelation happened in two parts. Firstly, the deceased was invited for drinks by the Appellant. They both had liquor at the Appellant's house where he received injuries with a knife. The second part of the prosecution version is that the deceased went to his mother's house (which was close to the Appellant's house). He knocked at the door; the deceased's brother Amarjit Singh opened the door and he (Amarjit Singh), his mother (PW-2) and his wife (PW-4) noticed that the deceased was drenched in blood. The deceased made a dying declaration. The time of the incident is 11:30 PM. At this hour

other people in the street may not have noticed the Appellant proceeding to his mother's house. When an alarm was raised, PW-3 Manmohan Singh a neighbour and an independent witness were attracted. PW-3 also noticed the deceased smeared with blood standing in front of Amarjit Singh's house. He corroborated the second part of the incident when he PW-1 and one Karan Singh went to the Appellant's house and he admitted having caused injuries to Sardul Singh as he had ruined his family life. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 stood the test of cross-examination and nothing could be brought in their cross-examination to suggest that they were telling a lie.

13. In the case State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 512 the Supreme Court held that "a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons". In the case of Dharindhar v. State of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759 the Supreme Court held that "there is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to an incident (occurrence) and that they will always depose falsely before the court. It will always depend on facts and circumstance of each case". Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless motive to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is shown. It has been often said that witnesses, who are relatives of victim, would not allow the real culprit to escape and implicate a person who is innocent. In the facts and circumstances of this case we do not find any reason to disbelieve PW-1, 2, 3 and 4 who are the close relations and neighbour of the deceased.

14. It is urged that PWs 1, 2 and 4 are not consistent about the dying declaration alleged to be made by the deceased. Such a dying declaration, it is contended, cannot be believed to base conviction of an accused. We do not agree. The powers of observation, retention and reproduction differs from person to person particularly when the deposition of the witnesses is recorded in the Court after considerable lapse of time. The Court has to see the substratum of the version given by each of the witnesses. PW-1, 2 and 4 who are the witnesses of the dying

declaration made by the deceased are consistent that when the door was opened by PW-1, the deceased was standing in front of the door and was smeared with blood. They are consistent that he disclosed to them that he had been inflicted injuries by the Appellant. Merely because the actual words used by the witnesses are different would not mean that their testimonies are contradictory. Relying on Mannu Raja v. State of M.P., (1976) 2 SCR 764 in Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 the Supreme Court held that "there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. It was laid down that if the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can form basis of conviction without seeking any corroboration". In this case the FIR was promptly recorded. The Appellant did not give any reason or motive for the witnesses to have concocted the dying declaration or to have falsely deposed against him. The presence of the witnesses was natural. Thus we do believe that the dying declaration made by the deceased was true, voluntary and the same can be relied upon to convict the Appellant.

15. Moreover, the dying declaration is corroborated by an extra judicial confession made to PW-1 and PW-3. It is said that an extra judicial confession is inherently a weak type of evidence. Many a time the police would use extra judicial confession to work out blind cases. In State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, 2003 (8) SCC 180 the Supreme Court held that an extra judicial confession would have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession, like any other evidence, would depend upon the veracity of the witness to whom it had been made. It was not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession was a weak type of evidence. In this case immediately on making the dying declaration by Sardul Singh, PW-1 and PW-4 approached the Appellant who had been spoken as an assailant by the deceased. The Appellant admitted having caused the injuries on the ground that the deceased had ruined his family life. Since, the Appellant had consumed liquor with the deceased, perhaps he could not escape and blurred out what had transpired. The confession made by the Appellant appears to be natural and probable. We are inclined to believe the same.

16. The presence of ethyl alcohol in the deceased's stomach in postmortem examination Ex.PW-9/B does corroborate the prosecution version regarding consumption of liquor by him. Non-recovery of the weapon of offence does not affect the veracity of the prosecution as its recovery would be only an additional circumstance in proof of the prosecution version.

17. We do not find any reason to interfere in the conclusion reached by the Trial Court, which is logical and well reasoned. The appeal is without any merit and has, therefore, to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.

18. Since the Appellant was not available at the given address and was reported to have absconded, the Trial Court has already initiated the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. to declare the Appellant as Proclaimed Offender. The Trial Court is directed to take steps for Appellant's apprehension so as to serve the remainder of the sentence.

19. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Trial Court immediately for compliance.

20. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 hs