Delhi High Court
Inder Singh vs State on 29 July, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: July 08, 2013
Judgment Pronounced on: July 29,2013
+ CRL.APPEAL 258/1998
INDER SINGH .....Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Vikrant Saini, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Saahil
Mongia, Ms.Priyanka Kapoor,
Mr.Mohd. Anand, Advocates.
CRL.APPEAL 369/1998
RANBIR & KUDDU & ANR .....Appellants
Represented by: Mr.Vikrant Saini, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing
Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Saahil
Mongia, Ms.Priyanka Kapoor,
Mr.Mohd. Anand, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Criminal law was set into motion when in the intervening night of
March 25 and 26, 1994 at about 03.00, in the night, DD No.25A, Ex.PW-
7/B, was recorded at PS Tilak Nagar to the effect that a quarrel was going
on at WZ-162, village Khayala.
2. On being handed over a copy of Ex.PW-7/B, SI Shamsher Singh
PW-24, went to the house bearing Municipal No.WZ-162, Khayala but
did not see any quarrel take place nor came to know anything which
could throw any light upon the factum of a quarrel having taken place at
said address.
3. Before SI Shamsher Singh could complete the formality of making
another DD entry recording his visit to Khayala to investigate the stated
incident as recorded in Ex.PW-7/B, on March 26, 1994 at around 09.00
PM i.e. when night had commenced on March 26, 1994, Ravinder Singh
PW-9 came to PS Tilak Nagar and informed him that he fears that five
persons named Dharmender, Ishwar, Hargian, Inder and Goodoo (Kudhu)
might have murdered his brother Surjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Deceased'). SI Shamsher Singh recorded the statement Ex.PW-9/A
of Ravinder Singh and made an endorsement, Ex.PW-24/A thereon and at
around 09.50 PM forwarded the same to the Duty Officer through
Ct.Rajender Kumar PW-4 who in turn handed over the same to HC Sat
Prakash PW-7 who registered FIR No.167/1994, Ex.PW-7/A.
4. A word needs to be spoken about the mechanical manner in which
police officers in Delhi work. They behave like school children and
recite nursery rhymes. We find this happening in case after case. From
the facts noted in paragraph 3 above it is apparent that SI Shamsher Singh
was at the police station when Ravinder Singh came to him and made the
statement Ex.PW-9/A. What was the need to call Ct.Rajender Singh and
make an endorsement beneath the statement and forward the same to the
duty officer for FIR to be registered. This is to be done where a police
officer records a statement away from the police station which evidences
the commission of a cognizable offence. In said circumstance the police
officer has to make an endorsement beneath the statement for FIR to be
registered. But not if a person makes a statement in the police station
itself.
5. In his statement Ex.PW-9/A, Ravinder Singh stated that he resides
at village Mannu Nagar P.O. Chandel Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur
U.P. with his family and that his brother i.e. the deceased resides in Delhi
in a tenanted house bearing Municipal No.WZ-115, village Khayala
owned by one Ramphool. On March 25, 1994 he came from the village to
meet the deceased. The same day at around 10.00 PM the deceased, the
son of the landlord of the deceased and he were present in the room of the
deceased when Dharmender son of Hargian Singh resident of WZ-162
Khayala along with 4 more persons came and while pointing towards the
deceased said: 'this is Surjit Singh who had misbehaved with them'. At
that, the 4 persons who were calling each other by the names Ishwar,
Hargian, Inder and Goodoo said 'let us kill this scoundrel, we will see
what will happen thereafter' and simultaneously started beating the
deceased and dragged him into the lane. He did not know where they
took the deceased and feared that the deceased might have been
murdered. He disclosed that even he received minor injuries.
6. On March 29, 1994 SI Shamsher Singh PW-24, recorded the
statement Ex.PW-29/DA under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Baldev Singh, a
relative of the deceased. In the statement Ex.PW-29/DA, Baldev Singh
stated that on the intervening night of March 25/26, 1994 at around 12.30
midnight he went to the tenanted premises where the deceased lived as he
learnt that Ravinder Singh had come from the village to meet the
deceased. On reaching there he met Ravinder Singh who was in a
perplexed condition. On enquiry Ravinder Singh told him that today i.e.
March 25, 1994 at about 10.00 PM sons of the landlord of the deceased
Ishwar, Ranvir @ Kuddu, cousin brother of the landlord Hargian and his
son Dharmender came in the room of the deceased and forcibly took him
away to an unknown place. Thereafter at around 01.00 AM (middle of the
night) he and Ravinder Singh went to the house of Hargian in village
Khayala to look for the deceased where they saw Ravinder @ Kuddu and
Inder whom he knew from before taking the deceased in a rickshaw and
Hargian standing in front of his house. When they made enquiries
Hargian asked them to leave from there and told them that they would
leave the deceased after providing him with medical treatment. They got
scared and returned to the tenanted premises of the deceased. Ravinder
Singh had told him that he had also sustained minor injuries when
aforesaid persons forcibly took away the deceased. On saying of
Ravinder Singh he went to his village Mannu Nagar District Rampur U.P.
to inform his father Buta Singh.
7. Immediately on registration of the FIR, the police started searching
the deceased but were unable to find him nor could obtain any clue
regarding his whereabouts. Since the relatives of the deceased Ravinder
Singh and Baldev Singh had indicted Ishwar Singh, Inder Singh, Ranvir
@ Kuddu and Hargian Singh and Dharmender as kidnappers of the
deceased the police also looked for them, but to no avail.
8. On April 01, 1994 the investigation of the case was handed over to
SI Dharampal PW-28.
9. On April 03, 1994 at about 04.15 PM Buta Singh PW-15, the father
of the deceased, came to PS Tilak Nagar and made a statement to HC Sat
Prakash PW-7, to the effect that today i.e. on April 03, 1994 he along
with his son Ravinder Singh were present at village Khayala when at
around 02.00 PM 3 persons whose names were told to him by his son
Ravinder as Inder, Hargian and Ranvir @ Kuddu came there. Said
persons offered him solace and told him that his son Surjit Singh i.e. the
deceased is no longer alive; they have committed a mistake and are ready
to pay for said mistake. They further told him that they are ready to give
him a sum of `1,00,000/- if he does not take any legal action against them
and that they would come back in the evening at 07.00 PM to finalize the
deal. HC Sat Prakash recorded the aforesaid statement of Buta Singh in
the form of a DD entry, Ex.PW-7/C.
10. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Buta Singh, a raiding
party consisting of SI Dharampal PW-28, ASI Om Prakash PW-26 and
some other police officials went to the tenanted premises of the deceased
in the evening of April 03, 1994. At around 07.15 PM accused Inder,
Hargian, Ishwar, Ravinder @ Kuddu and Dharmender came there and
were arrested by the aforesaid police officials. The personal search of all
the accused was conducted and a stated love letter Ex.P-1 was recovered
from the pocket of the Kurta of accused Inder.
11. On being interrogated by the police officials, the accused made
disclosure statements stating therein that they had murdered the deceased;
thrown the dead body of the deceased in a drain and can get recovered the
dead body of the deceased. Pursuant thereto, the accused persons led the
police officials to a drain and pointed out the spot where the dead body
was thrown but no recovery could be made.
12. Without the dead body of the deceased being recovered the charge
sheet was filed against the accused and it is apparent that the prosecution
was resting its case on the testimonies of Ravinder Singh, Baldev Singh
and Buta Singh.
13. Accused Dharmender being a minor was sent to trial before the
Juvenile Justice Board and the remaining four named Hargian, Inder,
Ishwar and Ranvir @ Kuddu were sent to trial before the Court of
Sessions. Our reference hereinafter would be to the said four persons,
and at the outset we may note that Hargian having died during pendency
of the appeal filed by him, as recorded in Crl.A.No.270/1998. Thus, as a
matter of fact we are concerned today with only three accused.
14. Before the trial commenced on October 01, 1994 a skull and two
bones were recovered from the drain pointed out by the accused. On
October 05, 2010 Dr.L.T.Ramani PW-20, subjected the skull and the
bones to a forensic opinion and as per report Ex.PW-20/A opined that the
skull was of an adult male and that he could not give an opinion regarding
the cause and the time of the death. On January 31, 1995 said skull was
shown to Buta Singh PW-15, the father of the deceased, who identified
the same as the skull of the deceased and for the purposes of
identification, we simply highlight that he did so on the basis of his claim
that his son had two teeth missing, and needless to state the skull had two
missing teeth.
15. Thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was filed by the police.
16. The accused were tried for having committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and an offence punishable under
Section 201 IPC pertaining to the death of Surjit Singh and destruction of
evidence pertaining to the offence.
17. At the trial, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses. Eschewing
reference to the formal and procedural witnesses, we note the deposition
of only those witnesses who are relevant for the purposes of disposal of
the instant appeals.
18. In his testimony, Ravinder Singh PW-9, the brother of the
deceased, deposed on the lines of his statement Ex.PW-9/A. Additionally,
he deposed that he has studied upto B.A. Out of fear and the fact that he
was new to the area and did not know anyone he did not inform about the
incident of March 25, 1994 to any neighbour. On the intervening night of
March 25/26, 1994 at about 01.00 AM his brother Baldev Singh who is a
truck driver came to meet him in the tenanted premises of the deceased.
He narrated the entire incident to his brother Baldev Singh. Thereafter
Baldev Singh and he went in search of the deceased. When they reached
near the house of accused Hargian he saw that accused Inder and Ranbir
had put the deceased in a rickshaw and accused Hargian was standing in
front of his house. On making enquiries, Inder and Ranbir informed them
that they would provide medical treatment to the deceased and they
should go back. Out of fear, he and his brother Baldev, returned to the
tenanted premises of the deceased. On March 26, 1994 he sent Baldev to
his native village to inform his father. On March 3, 1994 his father came
to the tenanted premises of the deceased in Khayala. On said day he had
gone to look for the deceased. At about 2.00 - 2.30 PM he returned to the
tenanted premises of the deceased when his father informed him that
Inder Singh, Ranbir Singh and Hargian Singh had come there and
informed him that they had murdered the deceased and offered him a sum
of `1,00,000/- to hush up the matter. He sent his father to the police
station to lodge a report in said regard. At about 07.00 PM the accused
persons came to the tenanted premises of the deceased where they were
arrested by the police officials. A love letter Ex.P-1 was recovered from
the personal search of accused Inder and the same was seized by the
police in his presence. His father was also present at said time.
19. It would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross-
examination of Ravinder Singh PW-1:
"Letter was seen by me and my father. At that time my
statement or statement of my father was not recorded. This
letter was shown to me at the PS. My statement was not
recorded by the police at the PS, letter was taken into
possession.
Question: - You have stated two facts. Firstly letter was shown
to you by the police at room of your brother and secondly letter
was shown at the PS, clarify?
Answer: - Letter was shown to me by the police officials at both
the places.
...
The letter was not put by the police into any envelope. The
letter was not folded nor any seal was affixed on the folded
letter.
Q. Whether the letter was placed by the Police Officer into
his pocket?
....
The letter was kept by the police officer in the file. The
police demanded from us the documents in the hand-writing of
Surjeet Singh. The same was handed over to police.
.....
I had stated to the police in my statement on 26.3.94 that I was
new to the area, did not know any neighbor, did not raise any
alarm and that kept sitting out of fear confronted with
Ex.PW9/A where these facts do not find mention.
....
My first statement was recorded by the police on 26.3.94 at
9.50 PM. Before my statement I alongwith my brother Baldev
had gone in search of my deceased brother. I had also give an
application at PS Tilak Nagar which was signed by me before
my statement was recorded in this case. this was given in the
night of 25.3.94 at about 12 AM (night). My brother Baldev had
come at about 1 AM after I had given the application in the PS.
In the application to the police I had narrated the entire
position and also expressed apprehension about killing/murder
of my brother. No action has been taken by the police. The
police also did not came to the spot on 26.3.94. It is correct that
again myself went to PS Tilak Nagar and complaint to the
police but they did not pay any heed. Local police came at
about 11 PM on 26.3.94. (Vol. stated I had also informed PCR
at no.100 at about 9.50 PM as no action was taken by the
Police) I again went to PS Tilak Nagar. My statement
Ex.PW9/A was recorded by the police at PS.
....
.....My statement on 4.4.94 was recorded at police station.
Letter Ed. P1 was again shown to me on 4.4.94. I informed the
police that this letter is in the hand of my deceased brother....
....I was assaulted on my mouth and I was bleeding from
there....
I had stated to the police in my statement that thereafter I
and Baldev went in search of Surjit and that I had narrated all
these facts to Baldev prior to that. (Confronted with statement
Ex.PW9/A where it is not so recorded). I had stated to the
police in my statement that while searching Surjit, we reached
at the house of accused Hargian bearing no.162 and there we
found that accused Ranbir and accused Inder had put Surjit on
a rickshaw and accused Hargian was standing in front of his
house. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A where it is not so
recorded). I had stated to the police in my statement that on
enquiry by me accused Inder and Ranbir told me "TERE BHAI
KA ILLAZ DEGE, TUM APNE MAKAN PAR WAPIS JAO" and
thereafter myself and my brother Baldev out of fear came at the
room of Surjit (Confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A where all
these facts are not recorded)...."
20. Sat Pal PW-14, a taxi driver, deposed that on March 26, 1994 at
about 03.00 AM 3 persons had hired his taxi to go to Sikandrabad. The
witness failed to identify the accused as the persons who had hired his
taxi on March 26, 1994. It would be relevant to not the following portion
of cross-examination of said witness by the prosecutor:-
"...It is correct that in my statement to the police, I had stated
that the two persons who had come to hire taxi were perplexed
and were taking their names as Ishwer and Kuddu....
(The accused persons have been shown by the ld. Addl. PP to
the witness. On seeing the accused persons, the witness has
stated by pointing towards accused Hargian that he was the
person who had paid him the fare of the taxi. Regarding the
other accused persons, the witness has failed to identify
them.)..."
21. Buta Singh PW-15, the father of the deceased, deposed in sync
with his statement Ex.PW-7/C. Additionally, he deposed that on March
26, 1994 his cousin Baldev Singh had come from Delhi to his village to
inform him about the murder of the deceased, on which day he had gone
to Haryana. His son Ravinder Singh was also present in the police station
at the time when statement Ex.PW-7/C was made by him. On April 03,
1994 at about 07.00 PM the police had apprehended the accused persons
from the tenanted premises of the deceased in his presence. A letter Ex.P-
1 was recovered from the person of accused Inder. On April 04, 1994 the
letter recovered from the person of accused Inder was shown to him and
he identified the same to be in the handwriting of the deceased. On
January 31, 1995 the police had shown him a skull and the same was
identified by him as that of the deceased. He had identified said skull on
the basis that the deceased had broken his two teeth while playing a sport
and two teeth were missing from the jaw of said skull.
22. It would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross-
examination of Buta Singh PW-15:-
"Three persons who had come to me to make offer were known
to me prior to that day. I do not know if the said person knew
me. I was aware about their names prior to that day. I had not
given the names of those persons when I lodged the report at
police station at that time....
I had stated to the police that I and my son Ravinder had come
to the police station to lodge the report. (Confronted with
statement Ex.PW7/C where it is not so recorded)....
...Police had not demanded any letter written by Surjit to me
for comparing the same with the letter Ex.P1....
23. Dr.L.T.Ramani PW-20, proved the report Ex.PW-20/A. It would
be relevant to note the following portion of the testimony of said
witness:-
"...Upper Jaw showed 12 teeth that were intact and still firm.
Apart from these 12 teeth, two central incisor sockets were
empty. (teeth fallen probably due to decomposition).
24. SI Dharampal PW-28, deposed the facts regarding the investigation
conducted by him in the present case. It would be relevant to note the
following portion of cross-examination of said witness:-
"...I had read the contents of letter Ex.P.1 recovered from the
personal search of accused Inder. The said letter Ex.P.1 was
shown at that time to PW Ravinder and Boota Singh. PW
Ravinder had read the contents of the said letter. Again said the
contents of the said letter were read over by me to them and at
that time PW Ravinder and Boota Singh had not identified the
writing of the said letter Ex.P.1 to be that of the deceased....I
did not collect any document containing the handwriting of the
deceased for comparison with the handwriting contained in the
letter Ex.P.1. No document containing the writing of the
deceased was produced by Boota Singh or Ravinder for
comparsion...
...The letter recovered from the possession of accused Inder
Ex.P.1 was not sealed at the spot at the time of its recovery."
25. Baldev Singh PW-29, deposed in sync with his statement Ex.PW-
29/DA. It would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross-
examination of said witness:-
"I had not lodged the report with the police on the intervening
night of 25/26.3.94. (Volunteered we had reported the matter to
the police on the morning of 26.3.94.) I myself had gone to the
PS of PS T. Nagar to lodge the report. (Ravinder was also with
me at that time.) We had gone to the PS at about 6 or 7 A.M. I
had not gone to Ram Pur, U.P. on that night.....Ravinder had
not received any injury..."
26. In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the
accused pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
27. Vide impugned judgment and order dated June 12, 1998 the
learned Trial Judge has held the accused guilty of the charge(s) framed
against them and has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life
and pay fine in sum of `300/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month.
28. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants have filed the present
appeals.
29. From the afore-noted conspectus of facts, it is apparent that the
prosecution has relied upon following 7 circumstances to bring home the
guilt of the accused persons:-
I Deceased was forcibly taken away by the accused persons from his
tenanted premises on the night of March 25, 1994 and never seen alive
after that time.
II Accused Inder, Hargian and Ranvir @ Kuddu had made an extra-
judicial confession to Buta Singh PW-15, the father of the deceased.
III Letter Ex.P-1 written by the deceased was found from the
possession of accused Inder Singh at the time of his apprehension.
IV Accused persons had a motive to do away with the deceased.
V Deceased died a homicidal death.
VI Skull of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused.
VII Accused absconded soon after the incident.
All of which have been treated as having been proved and sufficient
evidence to convict the accused by the learned Trial Judge.
30. Let us proceed to examine whether the prosecution has been able to
prove each of the afore-noted circumstances and whether they are
sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
I Deceased was forcibly taken away by the accused persons from his
tenanted premises on the night of March 25, 1994 and never seen alive
after that time.
31. Indeed, if this is proved, that would be the end of the road for the
accused because if five persons forcibly take away another person, they
must account for what happened to the person and if they fail to do so an
adverse inference would be required to be drawn against them and said
circumstance alone is sufficient to return a verdict of guilt.
32. The prosecution has sought to prove the aforesaid fact through the
testimony of Ravinder Singh PW-9, the brother of the deceased, and
Baldev Singh PW-29, a close relative of the deceased.
33. Whether Ravinder Singh PW-9 and Baldev Singh PW-29, are
creditworthy witnesses?
34. As per Ravinder Singh he was present in the tenanted room of the
deceased when the accused forcibly took away the deceased while
beating the deceased and even causing injury to him at 10:00 PM on
March 25, 1994. The same night at around 01:00 AM he and Baldev
went to the house of accused Hargian at WZ-162, Village Khayala where
he and Baldev saw the accused having put the deceased in a rickshaw and
told them that they were taking the deceased for medical treatment.
35. It assumes importance to note that Ravinder went to the police
station at 9:00 PM on March 26, 1994 and made the statement Ex.PW-
9/A. The time gap of 24 hours is important. It is not the conduct of a
normal human being to not raise a hue and cry when his brother is
forcibly removed in front of his eyes and that too when being assaulted
and the person suffers injuries. Assuming the person would be overtaken
by sudden events, but as the assailants would flee, rationality would
return. At least when the person concerned finds himself in the company
of somebody he knew. As per Ravinder his cousin Baldev Singh came to
the house wherefrom his brother was forcibly removed at around 12:30
midnight. As per him he and Baldev started searching for his brother. He
claims to have seen his brother in a rickshaw and the accused told him
and Baldev that they were taking the deceased for medical aid. He still
did not report the matter to the police. Besides, his statement Ex.PW-9/A
recorded at 9:50 PM on March 26, 1994 does not make any mention of
Baldev meeting him the previous midnight and the two having seen his
brother seriously injured and put on a rickshaw and the accused having
told him and Baldev that they were taking the deceased for medical
treatment.
36. Similar is the position with respect to the testimony of Baldev
Singh. Why did the two not inform the police when, as per their
statements, they had seen the deceased in the company of the accused
with a grave danger to the life of the deceased? It has to be kept in mind
that Ravinder Singh was a graduate. His half statement made to the
police after 24 hours and his half statement made thereafter are highly
suspicious statements. Besides, the question which we have posed need
an answer. Indeed, the answer to the above question is not to be found in
the examination-in-chief or statement Ex.PW-9/A of Ravinder Singh,
PW-9. When questioned about delay in informing the police, in cross-
examination, Ravinder Singh stated that he had gone to the police station
Tilak Nagar on occasions prior to 10.00 PM on March 26, 1994 but the
police did not pay any heed to him. The failure of Ravinder Singh PW-9,
to mention said facts in his statement Ex.PW-9/A or examination-in-chief
raises a serious doubt on the correctness of said facts. It is clear beyond
any doubt that Ravinder Singh PW-9, cooked up a false story that he had
gone to the police station on 2 prior occasions but police did not pay any
heed to him to cover up the delay on his part in informing the police at
the earliest about the incident in question. Thus, the fact of the matter is
that Ravinder Singh PW-9, inform the police 24 hours after the deceased
was allegedly taken away by the accused, which circumstance raises a
serious doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
37. The doubt is further aggravated when we find that Ravinder Singh
had mentioned about the fact that his relative Baldev Singh had come to
the tenanted premises of the deceased soon after the deceased had been
forcibly taken away by the accused on March 25, 1994 and that they i.e.
he and Baldev Singh had seen accused Ranvir @ Kuddu and Inder
putting the deceased in rickshaw at around 01.00 AM on March 26, 1994.
When questioned about said omission in his cross-examination, Ravinder
Singh PW-9, could not give any plausible explanation for said omission
and stated that he had mentioned said facts to the police when his
statement Ex.PW-9/A was recorded. The aforesaid omission in the
statement Ex.PW-9/A of Ravinder Singh is very significant and goes a
long way in discrediting his testimony.
38. As regards the testimony of Baldev Singh PW-29, the fact that
Ravinder Singh did not mention even a word about the presence of
Baldev Singh and the incident of accused Inder and Ranvir @ Kuddu of
putting the deceased in a rickshaw in his statement Ex.PW-9/A casts a
serious dent on the testimony of Baldev Singh PW-29 that at about 12.30
AM on March 26, 1994 he had gone to the tenanted premises of the
deceased to meet his brother Ravinder Singh who told him that the
deceased had been forcibly taken away by the accused persons and that at
around 01.00 AM when he and Ravinder Singh had gone to the house of
accused to look for the deceased they saw accused Ravinder @ Kuddu
and Inder putting the deceased in rickshaw.
39. Furthermore, we find a serious discrepancy in the testimony of
Baldev Singh PW-29. Both claim that Baldev Singh left Delhi for the
village of the deceased to inform about the accused having forcibly taken
away the deceased and after a few hours the two having seen the
deceased seriously injured being put in a rickshaw by the accused. But
on being cross-examined Baldev Singh had a different story to tell i.e. in
the morning of March 26, 1994 he and Ravinder Singh having gone to the
police station to lodge a report.
40. There is yet another fact which has a material bearing on the
creditworthiness of the testimony of Ravinder Singh PW-9 and Baldev
Singh PW-29. DD entry Ex.PW-7/B records a quarrel taking place at
WZ-162, village Khayala i.e. the residence of accused Hargian at about
03.00 AM on March 26, 1994. What happened at the house of Hargian at
about 03.00 AM on March 26, 1994? We do not know. But, what DD
entry Ex.PW-7/B indicates that something did happen at the house of
Hargian at about 03.00 AM on March 26, 1994.
41. In view of the above, we hold that the prosecution has not been
able to establish that the deceased was forcibly taken away by the accused
from his tenanted premises on the night of March 25, 1994.
II Accused Inder, Hargian and Ranvir @ Kuddu had made an extra-
judicial confession to Buta Singh PW-15, the father of the deceased
42. The prosecution has sought to prove said fact through the
testimony of Buta Singh PW-15, the father of the deceased.
43. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had sought to
discredit the testimony of Buta Singh PW-15 by pointing out various
contradictions and discrepancies in his evidence.
44. We need not examine the various contradictions/discrepancies
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused for the
reason we find that it is highly improbable that accused Inder, Hargian
and Ranvir @ Kuddu would have made an extra-judicial confession to the
father of the deceased.
45. On August 03, 1994 Buta Singh PW-15, had come from his village
in U.P. to the tenanted premises of the deceased in village Khayala in
Delhi after being informed of the disappearance of the deceased. On the
same day itself i.e. August 03, 1994 accused Inder, Hargian and Ranvir
@ Kuddu are stated to have made an extra-judicial confession to Buta
Singh.
46. Besides, as per the police the accused were absconding, and this
would obviously mean that they would be evading arrest. How come
they reached the house of the deceased, as claimed by the police? Surely
not to be arrested. Besides, we find it utterly nonsensical that the accused
would voluntarily walk up to the father of the deceased and make a
confession.
III A letter Ex.P-1 written by the deceased was found from the
possession of accused Inder Singh when he was arrested.
47. The prosecution has sought to prove the aforesaid fact through the
testimony of Ravinder Singh PW-1, the brother of the deceased, Buta
Singh PW-15, the father of the deceased and the police officials ASI Om
Prakash PW-26 and SI Dharampal PW-28.
48. The letter Ex.P-1 is stated to have been recovered from the pocket
of Kurta of accused Inder at the time when he was arrested by the police
from the tenanted premises of the deceased on August 03, 1994.
49. SI Dharampal PW-28, had deposed that Buta Singh PW-15 and
Ravinder Singh PW-9, the father and brother of the deceased
respectively, failed to identify that the letter Ex.P-1 was written by the
deceased when the same was shown to said persons at the time when it
was recovered from the person of accused Inder however subsequently
Buta Singh and Ravinder Singh were able to identify that the letter Ex.P-
1 was written by the deceased. The aforesaid circumstance assumes
importance in the light of the admission made by SI Dharampal PW-28,
in his cross-examination that letter Ex.P-1 was not sealed by him at the
time of its recovery from the person of accused Inder at the time of his
arrest. Such being the position, the possibility that the letter Ex.P-1 was
not the letter which was recovered from the person of accused Inder at the
time of his arrest cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, it is highly
improbable that accused Inder would be carrying a letter written by the
deceased, a highly incriminating material if it could be linked to him, in
his pocket, particularly when he was evading arrest.
50. We thus hold that the prosecution has not convincingly established
that the letter Ex.P-1 was written by the deceased and that the same was
recovered from the person of accused Inder at the time of his arrest.
IV The accused persons had a motive to do away with the deceased.
51. As regards motive, the case set up by the prosecution is that the
deceased had written an objectionable letter Ex.P-1 (same letter which
was stated to have been recovered from the possession of accused Inder at
time of his arrest) to the daughter of accused Hargian which had incensed
the accused persons and they decided to do away with the deceased. (Be
it noted here that the Trial Court has held that the prosecution has been
able to establish that the accused persons had a motive to do away with
the deceased by proceeding on the premise that the letter Ex.P-1 was
addressed to the daughter of accused Hargian).
52. It has already been doubted by us in the foregoing paras that letter
Ex.P-1 was written by the deceased. However, assuming for a moment,
letter Ex.P-1 was written by the deceased, we find that the letter Ex.P-1 is
addressed to a girl named Sundri. There is not even an iota of evidence on
record that Sundri was the daughter of accused Hargian. None of the
witnesses of prosecution has deposed that Sundri was the daughter of
accused Hargian or that the letter Ex.P-1 was addressed to daughter of
accused Hargian. The learned Trial Judge has probably lapped up an
argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that
Sundri was Hargian's daughter.
V Deceased had died a homicidal death
VI Skull of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused
persons
53. The skull has been attempted to be linked to the deceased
with reference to the testimony of Buta Singh, the person who identified
the skull as that of his son, on the strength of Buta Singh's claim that the
deceased had lost two teeth. Relevant would it be to note that in his
deposition Dr.L.T.Ramani stated that the two missing teeth could be the
result of decomposition. Thus, it would be difficult to sustain a finding
that the skull was that of the deceased and this would mean that the link
incriminating evidence of the skull being recovered from a drain which
was disclosed by the accused as the place where they threw the dead body
of the deceased would also be missing.
54. We allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment
and order dated June 12, 1998 convicting the appellants for having
committed the offences they were charged of. The appellants are
acquitted. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the appellants
are discharged.
55. Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central
Jail Tihar for making necessary entry in the record. TCR be returned.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2013
mamta
