Delhi High Court
Jasbir Kaur @ Chinder Pal Kaur & ... vs State on 22 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. Appeal 633/2014
Reserved on: 10th February, 2015
% Date of Decision: 22nd May, 2015
JASBIR KAUR @ CHINDER PAL KAUR & ANR. Appellants
Through Mr. Naveen Gaur, Mr. Vijay Gaur
And Ms. Kamna Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
STATE ...Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP.
Crl. A. 1413/2014
RANJEET SINGH @ SONI ALIAS BAAZ SINGH ....Appellant
Through Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ...Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP.
Crl. A. 1040/2014
SUKHPAL SINGH ALIAS DEEP SINGH ...Appellant
Through Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ...Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The appellants Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and
Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz Singh have challenged the impugned judgment
dated 25th January, 2014, convicting them for murder of Lakhbir
Singh @ Lakha, in the charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 31/10, P.S.
Adarsh Nagar. By order on sentence dated 22nd February, 2014, the
appellants have been sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC
to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. They
have also been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment of 5 years, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each.
The impugned judgment also convicts them under Section 120B read
with Section 302/201 IPC and they stand sentenced for imprisonment
for life, fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one week each. Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total
amount of fine, if realized, it stands directed would be paid to legal
heirs of the deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha as compensation under
Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for
short). The sentences are to run concurrently and benefit of Section
428 Cr.P.C. has been granted.
2. Before referring to the arguments raised by the appellants, it
would be appropriate to reproduce the prosecution version in brief.
3. The deceased Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha was a Mehant and used
to reside in the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta, Azadpur. The appellants
also used to reside in the same Gurudwara. However, the deceased
Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha belonged to the faction headed by Baba
Baldev Singh, whereas the appellant Jasbir Kaur belonged to the
faction headed by Baba Surjeet Singh and there were inter se disputes
between the two factions on the control of the said Gurudwara and
other Gurudwaras. Lakhbir Singh was last seen at about 10 PM on 3rd
February, 2010. He was not to be seen on or after 5 AM on 4th
February, 2010. On 5th February, 2010 at about 4.30 PM, Lakhbir
Singh‟s son, Rajender Singh (PW12) made a missing report at police
station Adarsh Nagar, and FIR No.31/2010 was registered under
Section 365/34 IPC. Details of Lakhbir Singh were uploaded on the
ZIPNet website. Coincidingly, a dead body of unknown person was
found in the area of police station, Timarpur on 5th February, 2010.
On 10th February, 2010, this body was identified as that of Lakhbir
Singh. On investigation, it was learnt that the appellants herein are
the perpetrators who have committed the crime.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants have primarily contested the
findings on facts, inter alia, highlighting that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence but there are gaps which have been ignored in
the impugned judgment. Specific challenge is made to the testimony
of Karnail Singh (PW20) and the assertion that on 11th February,
2010 and 13th February, 2010, incriminating material was purportedly
lifted from inside the Gurudwara, which it is submitted, should be
disbelieved and is not reliable. The said evidence was planted. We
shall be referring to the contentions in detail when we refer the
evidence.
5. It is not disputed that the deceased Lakhbir Singh was residing
in the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta, Azadpur being the Mehant of the said
Gurudwara. There is ample evidence and material to show that the
deceased Lakhbir Singh belonged to Baba Baldev Singh
group/faction and the appellant Jasbir Kaur belonged to Baba Surjeet
Singh Group/faction. Malkeet Singh is the son of Jasbir Kaur.
Noticeably, the aforesaid facts and position has been asserted by the
appellants themselves in the cross-examination of the witnesses and is
deposed to by Harsimran (PW11), Rajender Singh (PW12), Hakum
Singh (PW13), Karnail Singh (PW20), Arjun Singh (PW21) and
Avtar Singh (PW27). The appellants Sukhpal Singh, Jasbir Kaur,
Malkeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh have accepted that there were
disputes regarding the Gurudwara between the two groups and a civil
case was pending. The dispute as per the prosecution was pre-cursor
and the motive for the offence in question. The appellants claim that
they have been falsely implicated in the crime, because of the said
differences.
6. To examine the contentions, we begin with the testimony of
Harsimran (PW11), a student who was also giving tuitions and had
been residing in the Gurudwara for last 2½ to 3 months. Harsimran
(PW11) has deposed that on 3rd February, 2010 at about 10 PM, he
had knocked at the door of the Gurudwara. Lakhbir Singh had
opened the door and thereafter, they had conversed about the court
proceedings regarding Baljeet Nagar Gurudwara. Lakhbir Singh had
effervescently consoled him stating that everything was fine and had
asked PW11 to go to sleep and that he (Lakhbir Singh) would remain
awake. Harsimran (PW11) had then questioned Lakhbir Singh, on
which he replied that there was nothing as such and since Harsimran
was tired, he should go to sleep. Harsimran, thereupon, went to his
room and slept. At 5 AM., the appellant Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz, who
was a sewadaar, came to his room and asked him to take bath and
perform the daily morning prayers (paath/ardaas). PW11 had then
enquired from the appellant Ranjeet Singh about Lakhbir Singh. It is
apparent that Lakhbir Singh used to perform paath/ardaas in the
morning. The appellant Ranjeet Singh had replied that Lakhbir Singh
had gone somewhere and would return by evening. PW11 felt
anomalous for Lakhbir Singh would, before leaving, hand over the
keys of the Gurudwara to him. PW11 performed the prayers and left
to give tuitions. When PW11 returned in the evening and met the
appellant Jasbir Kaur, PW11 was asked to move out of the
Gurudwara and shift to his relative‟s residence at Uttam Nagar.
PW11 had then asserted that he would not leave till Lakhbir Singh
returned. The appellant Ranjeet Singh had, thereupon, instigated
PW11 by stating that Lakhbir Singh had an „evil eye‟ on his sister.
PW11 did not believe the appellant Ranjeet Singh as his sister had
never suspected Lakhbir Singh or made any complaint in this regard.
7. It is thus clear from the testimony of PW11 that Lakhbir Singh
was last seen alive at 10 PM on 3rd February, 2010. He was missing
and not seen in the Gurudwara at 5.00 AM on 4th February, 2010.
PW11 has made the following important assertions; (1) Ranjeet Singh
@ Baaz who was a sewadaar, had woken him up and had asked
PW11 to perform the prayers in the Gurudwara; (2) Ranjeet Singh @
Baaz had told PW11 that Lakhbir Singh had gone somewhere and
would come back in the evening; (3) On 4th February, 2010, in the
evening Jasbir Kaur met him and had asked PW11 to leave the
Gurudwara; and, (4) Ranjit Singh tried to instigate PW11 by stating
that Lakhbir Singh had an „evil eye‟ on the sister of PW11.
8. Rajender Singh (PW12), son of the deceased Lakhbir Singh,
used to reside in Nabha, Punjab. On 3rd February, 2010, he had
received a call from one Karnail Singh who had a shop outside
Gurudwara that his father Lakhbir Singh was missing. He had then
contacted his relatives and acquaintances but whereabouts of his
father, Lakhbir Singh could not be ascertained. He came to Delhi and
found slippers of his father in the toilet, but he could not locate the
keys of the Gurudwara and the Kirpan of his father Lakhbir Singh.
He had made enquiries from Harsimran (PW11) who had then
narrated what has been stated by PW11 in his court deposition. His
chacha (paternal uncle) Anil Kumar who was also resident of Punjab
had come to Delhi and on 4th February, 2010 at 5 PM had made
enquiries from PW11. Enquiries were also made from the appellant
Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz who was elusive and preferred to go away
with the appellant Sukhpal Singh. Rajender Singh (PW12) felt
suspicious as he suspected that the appellant Sukhpal had kidnapped
his father. PW12 went to the police station Adarsh Nagar and had
made the complaint (Ex.PW12/A) which was signed by him at point
„A‟. Thereafter, FIR No.31/2010 under Section 365, IPC was
registered.
9. Counsel for the appellants have referred to the complaint
(Ex.PW12/A) to contend that it is bereft of particulars. Ex.PW12/A
records that Rajender Singh (PW12) aged about 18 years was
informed on phone by Karnail Singh that his father Lakhbir Singh
was missing for last 3-4 days and there was no sewadaar in the
Gurudwara. PW12 came to Delhi from Punjab and was informed by
Karnail Singh that his father Lakhbir Singh was not traceable.
Rajender Singh (PW12) had tried to call his father but his phone was
switched off. The shoes/slippers of his father were found in the
latrine and keys of the Gurudwara were missing. He had spoken to
Harsimran (PW11) who had seen his father on 3rd February, 2010 at
10 PM and narrated the sequence of events. The time period of 3-4
days as mentioned in Ex.PW12/A, it apparent is an estimate and not a
specific or certain period. We do not think that appellants can derive
any benefit on this basis. Ex.PW12/A specifically records the
presence of Harsimran (PW11) and his interaction with Lakhbir Singh
on 3rd February, 2010 at 10 PM.
10. On the question of disappearance of Lakhbir Singh, we would
now refer to deposition of Karnail Singh (PW20), who used to sell
building material from Shop Nos.9 and 10 at Gurudwara Rab da
Kutta, Azadpur. In his examination-in-chief, PW20 did not
specifically depose about his conversation with Rajender Singh
(PW12), but in his cross-examination, PW20 asserted that had not
seen Lakhbir Singh for 2-3 days and had become suspicious as the
appellants Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal Singh had called him and had
tried to speak to him. He was aware of the differences and disputes
between the two factions. PW20 was concerned and had on 5th
February, 2010, gone to the police station when PW12 had made the
complaint.
11. In view of the aforesaid evidence, there cannot be any doubt or
debate that the deceased Lakhbir Singh was missing and was not
traceable in the Gurudwara on or after 5 AM on 4th February, 2010.
He was last seen at 10.00 PM on 3rd February, 2010 by Harsimran
(PW11).
12. In the intervening night of 4th and 5th February, 2010, SI Sheo
Raj Singh (PW18) attached to PCR van, North Zone at about 1.55
AM had gone to Majnu Ka Tila, Wazirabad Road, while on night
patrol duty. A barking dog had drawn their attention towards the
drain. On examination, they found a gunny bag (bori) and a piece of
white cloth having blood stains. The bori was tied with a yellow
patti/cloth. Apprehensive, SI Sheo Raj Singh (PW18) informed the
Police Control Room, on which the SHO, P.S. Timarpur came there
with the staff. On checking the bag, a dead body of a Sikh person
with his hands tied, was found in half-naked condition. Statement of
PW18 (Ex.PW18/A) was recorded and FIR No.32/2010, PS Timarpur
(Ex.PW9/E) was registered. In his cross-examination, PW18 affirmed
the said factum but accepted that in the statement (Ex.PW18/A) it was
not stated that the dead body was of a Sikh who was tied and half
naked. However, he deposed that the said facts were correct. Rakesh
Bhardwaj (PW19), who had a photo studio at Jawahar Market, Mall
Road, Timarpur, proved the photographs of the dead body which
were marked Ex.PW19/A-1 to A-11. PW19 deposed that the
photographs were taken at Nehru Vihar turn (mor). He affirmed that
a cloth was removed from the dead body and dead body was of a Sikh
male of about 35 years. PW19 has inadvertently mentioned the date
on which the photographs were taken as intervening night of 5 th & 6th
February, 2010 but this, it is apparent, was on account of a memory-
loss or a mistake as the dead body was found in the intervening night
of 4th and 5th February, 2010. Insp. Rajnish Parmar, then SHO PS
Timarpur has deposed as PW22. He has testified that on 5th February,
2010 at about 2.45 PM, he had received DD No.4A (Ex.PW22/A)
regarding an abandoned gunny bag at Nehru Vihar turn between the
road and the drain (Ganda Nala). He had reached the spot where
several others were already present and found a gunny bag wrapped
in a white cloth closed from the top. On opening, a dead body of a
Sikh male aged around 42-43 years was recovered. Beard and hair on
the head was partly burnt. Unstitched clothes were tied around the
neck. There were injury marks on the forehead and elbow. Both knees
had bruises. The body had stiffened. The crime team and a
photographer were called. PW22 had recorded statement of ASI Sheo
Raj Singh (Ex.PW18/A) and made endorsement (Ex.PW22/B) for
registration of the FIR. The crime team report (Ex.PW5/A) was
proved by SI Devender Purang (PW5). The said witness had reached
the spot at 3.50 AM on 5th February, 2010. The dead body, gunny
bag, one blanket, blood stained earth under the dead body and earth
control were seized and put in separate containers vide seizure memo
Ex.PW22/D. The dead body was sent to mortuary at Sabzi Mandi for
being preserved as the identity could not be ascertained. Wireless
messages and ZIPNet were sent/uploaded and hue-and-cry notices
were issued. Unidentified dead body (UIDB) form was filled up.
13. On 10th February, 2010, Insp. Mahavir Kaushik (PW31) took
over the investigation in FIR No.31/2010 (Ex.PW26/B), registered at
P.S. Adarsh Nagar. On the same day, he came to know that an
unidentified dead body had been found in the jurisdiction of P.S.
Timarpur. Concerned, he went to the said police station and contacted
the SHO and collected FIR No.32/2010 of P.S. Timarpur. He learnt
that the dead body had been preserved at the Mortuary at Sabzi
Mandi. PW31 in his deposition has stated that the dead body was
identical and matched physical description of Lakhbir Singh. On 11th
February, 2010, PW31 called the crime team to inspect and scan the
room where Lakhbir Singh used to reside. They noticed blood-stains
on the chatai (mat), the rajai (quilt) and the two legs of a wooden
table.
14. SI Matadin Meena of the crime team had appeared as PW2. He
affirmed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW2/1) and
Inspection report (Ex.PW2/A). In his cross-examination, SI Matadin
Meena (PW2) has deposed that they had reached the spot on 11th
February, 2010 at 9.00 AM and had remained there for 45 minutes.
They had inspected the Gurudwara from outside and only one room
inside the Gurudwara, as per the direction of the Investigating Officer
who had not directed them to inspect other rooms. Ct. Parvinder
(PW1) had taken photographs. Ct. Parvinder (PW1) proved the
photographs marked Ex.PW1/A-1 to A-9. The two legs of the table
were cut were sealed in a cloth with the seal of MK vide seizure
memo Ex.PW12/B. The Rajai and the chatai were also seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW12/C and a site plan of the aforesaid room and
the Gurudwara were prepared and proved as Ex.PW21/A.
15. The dead body was recognized and identified by Rajender
Singh (PW12) and Hakum Singh (PW13) on 12th February, 2010 at
the Mortuary, Sabzi Mandi along with police officers of P.S.
Timarpur. The said witnesses namely Rajender Singh (PW12) and
Hakum Singh (PW13) have deposed about their visit to the Mortuary.
Rajender Singh (PW12) has also deposed about the seizure memo of
the chatai, the Rajai and the legs of the table. He identified the quilt
(rajai) as Ex.P1, the mat (chatai) as Ex.P2 and the legs of the table as
Ex.P3. Hakum Singh (PW13) has deposed that on 12th February,
2010, the police officers had asked him to identify the dead body of
Lakhbir Singh and he identified the same vide Ex.PW12/A. He also
identified the rajai (Ex.P1), the chatai (Ex.P2) and legs of the table
(Ex.P3).
16. HC Sudhir (PW28) has deposed on similar lines; that on 11 th
February, 2010 on the direction of the Investigating Officer, crime
team was called to the Gurudwara. They had inspected the scene of
crime. Photographs were taken. Blood was found on the two legs of
the table which were cut from the table. Blood was also found on
rajai (quilt) and also on chatai (mat). They were seized and sealed.
17. At this stage we would now like to refer to the statement of
Sunita Suman, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini (PW30)
who had proved the biological and serological reports marked
Ex.PW30/A and B, respectively. Blood was found on chatai, rajai
and two pieces (legs) of wooden table. Blood found on the rajai was
of group "B". Blood group could not be ascertained on the chatai and
wooden legs. The blood group of the deceased as per the serological
report was "B".
18. The aforesaid evidence shows that the offence in question had
taken place within the premises of the Gurudwara and in the room in
question, i.e. the room in occupation of the deceased Lakhbir Singh
had blood stains/marks, indicative of the violence and crime. Learned
counsel for the appellants have submitted that the room of Lakhbir
Singh in normal circumstances would have been sanitized and
checked earlier and, therefore, the testimony of Insp. Mahavir
Kaushik (PW31) and SI Matadin Meena (PW2) is far-fetched and
unbelievable. We are unable to accept the said contention. Initially
FIR No.31/2010, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, was investigated by SI Kuldeep
Singh (PW26). He has deposed that on 5th February, 2010, the
complaint of Rajender Singh was marked to him. On the next
morning, i.e. 6th February, 2010, he had visited the Gurudwara and
questioned Karnail Singh, Simranjeet (sic, Harsimran), Anil and
Rajender and recorded their statements. He also met the appellant
Jasbir Kaur and recorded her statement. He had discussed the matter
with the SHO and an FIR under Section 364 IPC was registered.
Endorsement on the complaint by Kuldeep Singh (PW26) was
marked Ex.PW26/A. Thereafter, WT message was flashed and
missing report/details were uploaded on ZIPNet. On 8th February,
2010, PW26 recorded statement of Arjun Singh. On 9th February,
2010, PW26 handed over the investigation of the case to the Addl.
SHO. In his cross-examination, SI Kuldeep Singh (PW26) has stated
that Karnail Singh, Simranjeet (sic, Harsimran), Anil and Rajender
Singh had not suspected anyone. He volunteered that Simranjeet (sic,
Harsimran) had seen Lakhbir Singh on 3rd February, 2010 at 10.00
PM. He was the last person to have seen Lakhbir Singh. He also
volunteered that Rajender Singh (PW12) had told him that he came to
Delhi after being told by Karnail Singh that Lakhbir Singh was
missing. PW26 had recorded their statements in the Gurudwara
complex. SI Kuldeep Singh (PW26) affirmed that he did not go inside
the room and had not searched the room. Room of Lakhbir Singh
was identified by Rajender Singh (PW12) and Hakum Singh (PW13)
but the same was locked and he did not try to open the room. As no
doubt was expressed on any person, he did not feel it necessary to
enter the room of Lakhbir Singh. Neither did he search the
Gurudwara as he did not believe anything incriminating would be
available.
19. The aforesaid statements show that SI Kuldeep Singh (PW26)
did not think it appropriate and necessary to inspect the room of
Lakhbir Singh. The said room was locked and was in a Gurudwara.
There appears to be some hesitation for the said reason. Moreover,
no one had suspected that Lakhbir Singh had been murdered and the
offence was committed in Gurudwara and that too by the present
appellants.
20. Rajender Singh (PW12) in his court deposition has not stated
that the police had physically inspected the room of Lakhbir Singh till
the inspection on 11th February, 2010. PW12 has stated that the day
after the complaint was made on 5th February, 2010, the police had
checked the Gurudwara including the rooms, toilet, bathroom and the
store-room. Police had remained there for one hour. After the dead
body of his father deceased Lakhbir Singh was recovered, police had
come again to the Gurudwara after 8.00 PM and at that time, room of
his father was checked and blood stains were found on the rajai, the
chatai and on the legs of the table kept in his room. The articles were
lifted. He has deposed that dead body of his father was identified on
10th February, 2010 and by then the appellants Sukhpal Singh,
Malkeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Jasbir Kaur had absconded from
the Gurudwara.
21. Similarly, Hakum Singh (PW13) stated that he had not asked
Rajender singh (PW12) to open the room of Lakhbir Singh and check
if Lakhbir Singh had left any note. On 11th February, 2010, police
had come to the Gurudwara and had inspected the room of Lakhbir
Singh. Hakum Singh (PW13) was not aware whether the police had
earlier come to the Gurudwara.
22. Hakum Singh (PW13) has deposed that the deceased Lakhbir
Singh was his nephew and Mehant of the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta
and used to reside therein. The appellant Jasbir Kaur was residing in
the same Gurudwara with her children and as per his information, one
Sukhpal was also residing in Gurudwara. Husband of the appellant
Jasbir Kaur was involved in a criminal case and confined to jail.
PW13 had signed the recovery memos prepared by the police officers
on 11th February, 2010, when blood stained mat (chatai), quilt (rajai)
and two legs of table were cut were taken into possession and seized.
On 12th February, 2010, PW13 had identified the dead body of
Lakhbir Singh in the mortuary. He had identified the appellants,
though he had difficulty in identifying the appellant Ranjeet Singh @
Baaz as he had beard and earlier PW13 had seen him without a beard.
In his cross-examination, PW13 accepted that there were disputes
over control of many Gurudwaras and one Baldev Singh who
belonged to Sardar Sarjit Singh group had claimed his right as
Mehant of the Gurudwara in question. Subsequently, Baldev Singh
was arrested in a criminal case at Patiala, Punjab. Appellant Jasbir
Kaur was wife of said Baldev Singh.
23. Pyara Singh (PW14) has affirmed the aforesaid facts that
Baldev Singh had forcibly tried to take control of the Gurudwara Rab
da Kutta by claiming himself to be a Granthi, but was subsequently
arrested in a murder case. His wife, i.e. the appellant Jasbir Kaur was
in possession of three rooms in the Gurudwara. PW14 was a
sewadaar in the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta but had gone out of station
and was not present in the Gurudwara on the intervening night of 3 rd
and 4th February, 2010. He had returned only on 13 th February, 2010.
PW14 had seen the police arresting the appellants Sukhpal and Jasbir
Kaur and observed that they had made disclosure statements,
Ex.PW14/D and E, respectively, which were signed by him. PW14
had also seen the two appellants taking the police team to the store-
room, from where blood-stained hair and tirpal were taken into
possession and seized. Blood was also found on the floor, and earth
control was lifted. Pyara Singh (PW14) had also deposed about
recovery of Chola belonging to the appellant Sukhpal at the instance
of the appellant Jasbir Kaur, which was sealed and seized vide seizure
memo, Ex.PW14/J. Noon Kutna was recovered at the behest of the
appellant Sukhpal and taken into possession vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW14/K. The appellant Jasbir Kaur had got recovered one Jacket,
which was worn by Malkeet Singh at the time of occurrence. The
said Jacket was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW14/N.
24. Our attention was drawn to the cross-examination of Pyara
Singh (PW14) by counsel for the accused wherein he was confronted
and shown a complaint marked Ex.PW14/DA purportedly made by
him. PW14 denied his signatures on the said complaint and had also
stated that mobile No.9463553510 did not belong to him. The court,
thereafter, had confronted Pyara Singh (PW14) with his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the same number has been
mentioned. PW14 had then claimed that the police had not read out
his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We do not think the
appellants can derive any benefit even if we accept the position that
the mobile No.9463553510 belonged to Pyara Singh (PW14). We
have also gone through the Ex.PW14/DA and we find that
unsubstantiated allegations have been made. The said document
Ex.PW14/DA would not tilt or affect the prosecution case.
25. Arjun Singh (PW21) has also identically and similarly deposed
on the differences between the two factions and Lakhbir Singh was
the Mehant of the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta and that he had tried to
pacify the two factions but the appellant Jasbir Kaur was insisting that
the deceased Lakhbir Singh should vacate the Gurudwara as she
claimed that Lakhbir Singh was wrongfully made the Mehant. The
appellant Sukhpal was residing with Jasbir Kaur and that on 3 rd
February, 2010 at about 2 P.M., he had attended a meeting in which
the deceased Lakhbir Singh was also present. The meeting had
continued till 6-6.30 P.M. Thereafter, they had boarded the Metro
and at about 7 PM, Lakhbir Singh had left for Azadpur from the Rajiv
Chowk Metro Station. This shows that Lakhbir Singh was alive on 3rd
February, 2010 till about 7 P.M. and had proceeded to the Gurudwara.
26. Avtar Singh (PW27) has stated that Lakhbir Singh, the
appellant Jasbir Kaur, her son and one daughter were residing in the
Gurudwara, but he did not know the appellant Sukhpal, though he
met him on 2-3 occasions. However, he accepted that on 3rd February,
2010, there was a meeting in which the deceased Lakhbir Singh and
others were present and the deceased Lakhbir Singh had left the
meeting at about 6.30 P.M. When cross-examined by the Addl. Public
Prosecutor, PW27 accepted that Lakhbir Singh and the appellant
Jasbir Kaur used to quarrel with each other.
27. It may be relevant to state that Harsimran (PW11) has stated
that one mataji, the deceased Lakhbir Singh and his family members,
the appellant Jasbir Kaur and his family members and the appellant
Sukhpal used to reside in the Gurudwara.
28. As per the depositions of ASI Shashi Kumar (PW23), Ct. Saroj
(PW24), and Mahavir Kaushik (PW31), the appellants Jasbir Kaur
and Sukhpal Singh were arrested vide arrest memos, Ex.PW14/A & B
on 13th February, 2010 at 2.30 PM and 3.00 PM, respectively. The
appellant Malkeet Singh was arrested on 15th February, 2010 at 9.30
PM as per arrest memo Ex.PW14/L and the appellant Ranjeet Singh
was arrested on 18th February, 2010 at 8.00 PM from village
Badawal, PS Sadar, Distt. Manshu, Punjab vide arrest memo
Ex.PW13/A. They had made disclosure statements marked
Ex.PW14/E, Ex.PW14/D, Ex.PW14/R and Ex.PW13/C, respectively.
On the basis of the disclosure statements, Ex.PW14/E & D made by
the appellants Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal respectively, the Gurudwara
was visited and inspected by the crime team on 13 th February, 2010
vide report Ex.PW3/A. As per the testimony of SI Devender Singh
(PW3), he had inspected the store-room of the Gurudwara, and blood
stains were found and human hairs lying near the wall were seized.
In an adjacent room, one white plastic tirpal having blood stains was
also seized. Photographs were taken and have been proved by Ct
Dalbir (PW6). The photographs have been marked Ex.PW6/A-1 to
A-10. On the basis of the disclosure statements following articles
were recovered as per the recovery memos:
Disclosure Disclosure by Item(s) recovered Exhibit
Statement
Ex.PW14/D Sukhpal Singh Noon kutna Ex.P11
Plastic tirpal Ex.P4
Ex.PW14/E Jasbir Kaur Blood-stained jacket Ex.P8
Chola Sukhpal Ex.P7
Ex.PW13/C Ranjeet Singh Yellow coloured Ex.P9 colly.
chequered shirt
Blood-stained clothes Ex.P10 colly.
from Gurudwara
29. As per CFSL report marked Ex.PW30/B and A, human blood
of group "B" was found on:
FSL Exhibits Particulars Blood Blood
detected Group
Exhibit "1" Chatai (Mat) Yes --
Exhibit "2" Rajai (Quilt) Yes B
Exhibit "3" Two pieces of wooden table legs Yes --
Exhibit "4" Dirty plastic katta described as "Tirpal" No
Exhibit "5" Stone pieces - "earth with blood" Yes --
Exhibit "6" Stone pieces - "earth control" Yes --
Exhibit "7" One kurta - "chola of the accused" No
Exhibit "8" One jacket Yes --
Exhibit "9a" One dirty lower No
Exhibit "9b" One shirt No
Exhibit "10" One dirty cloth piece - "rough cloth used for Yes --
cleaning blood by the accused"
Exhibit "11" One wooden danda (sotta) - "Noon Kutna" No
Exhibit "12" One cloth piece - "in which dead body was Yes B
tied"
Exhibit "13" One bori (jute) - "gunny bag in which dead Yes B
body was kept"
Exhibit "14" One towel Yes B
Exhibit "15" One blanket Yes B
Exhibit "16" Soil - "earth with blood" Yes --
Exhibit "17" Soil - "earth control" No
Exhibit "18" Cloth piece - "tying material around waist" Yes B
Exhibit "19" Cloth piece - "tying material around ankle No
joints"
Exhibit "20" Cloth piece - "ligature material" Yes --
Exhibit "21a" One dirty T-shirt Yes --
Exhibit "21b" One sleeve with dirty stains Yes --
Exhibit "22" Bunch of hair - "Scalp hair of the deceased" Yes --
Exhibit "23" Blood stained gauze Yes B
Exhibit "24" Cloth piece gauze - "blood from Maruti car" Yes B
30. The serological report, therefore, confirms presence of human
blood of group "B" which was the blood group of the deceased and
recoveries were made on disclosure statements made by Sukhpal
Singh (Ex.PW14/D), Jasbir Kaur (Ex.PW14/E) and Ranjeet Singh
(Ex.PW13/C). Recoveries without blood would not be relevant.
31. It would now be appropriate to refer to the deposition of
Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) and Karnail Singh (PW20) on how
the dead body was taken out of the Gurudwara and thrown at a
distance of 5-6 km at Nehru Vihar turn between the road and the
Ganda Nala (see deposition of Insp. Rajnish Parmar (PW22) wherein
he has stated that distance between police station Adarsh Nagar and
police station Timarpur is 5-6 km). Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17),
owner of Maruti Car bearing No.DL2CB-4256, testified that he had
known the appellant Jasbir Kaur for many years and that her son
Malkeet Singh had borrowed the said car on 3rd February, 2010 in the
morning hours between 3-4 AM and had returned the car on 4th
February, 2010 by about 7-8 AM. Malkeet Singh had taken the car
on the pretext that he had to pick up a relative. In his examination in
chief, Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) did not accept the prosecution
version that his car was borrowed in the intervening night of 4th and
5th February, 2010. The Addl. Public Prosecutor was first permitted
to ask leading questions and then cross-examine PW17. In response
to a leading question, PW17 had reiterated that Malkeet Singh had not
taken the key and the car in the intervening night of 4 th and 5th
February, 2010 at 12.30 AM but had taken the car at 4-5 AM.
Interestingly, in his examination in chief, PW17 had stated that the
car was borrowed at 3-4 AM. In PW17‟s cross-examination by the
Addl Public Prosecutor, the witness was confronted with his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. marked Ex.PW17/PX-1, portion
A to A, which was read over and explained. Thereupon, PW17
admitted having made the said statement before the police. PW17
hesitatingly deposed that he had forgotten the facts due to lapse of
time. Thus, PW17 accepted that Malkeet Singh had borrowed the car
in the intervening night of 4th-5th, February, 2010. In his cross-
examination by the counsel for the accused, PW17 again oscillated
and stated that Jasbir Kaur had taken the car on 3rd February, 2010
and returned the same on 4th February, 2010 after a telephonic
conversation. He and Jasbir Kaur used to regularly converse. He had
used the car on 4th February, 2010 as it was his birthday.
32. Several important facts emerge from the deposition of PW17.
Firstly, the Maruti Car No.DL2CV-4256 belonged to Krishan Murari
Tiwari (PW17). PW17 has accepted that Malkeet Singh had
borrowed his car. This fact was stated twice in the first portion of
PW17‟s examination-in-chief and reiterated in response to a leading
question also. However, in his cross-examination, Krishan Murari
Tiwari (PW17) did say that appellant Jasbir Kaur had taken the car on
3rd February, 2010 and returned the same on 4th February, 2010. We
believe the statement made in examination-in-chief and not the
unreliable version in the cross-examination that the appellant Jasbir
Kaur had taken the car. There is no material or evidence to show that
Jasbir Kaur knew how to drive. Malkeet Singh, a young boy it is
apparent knew how to drive the car. This is so impliedly accepted by
Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) in his examination in chief and not
subjected to cross-examination. Secondly, the car was borrowed on
an unearthly hour in the middle of night. As to the date, we are
inclined to accept that car was taken in the intervening night of 4th and
5th February, 2010, as was accepted by PW17 when he was cross-
examined by the public prosecutor. PW17 when confronted accepted
that this was the true factual position and had explained that he had
forgotten the timing or date due to lapse of time. It is apparent that
PW17 being a close acquaintance of the appellants Jasbir Kaur and
Malkeet Singh wanted to help them, but could not withstand the
cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor and was compelled to
speak the truth. The car was examined by the forensic expert on 11th
March, 2010 and traces of blood were found and seized vide memo
Ex.PW28/A. HC Sudhir (PW28) has testified that on 11th March,
2010, FSL Team had inspected the car in his presence and had lifted
blood with the help of chemicals from the rear right gate of the car.
PW28 had signed the seizure memo (Ex.PW28/A) and has testified
that the gauze was sealed with the seal of MK and the seized material
was deposited in the malkhaana. The blood lifted from the car was
sent for CFSL examination and as per the report Ex.PW30/A and B,
human blood of group "B" was found on the faint brown stains lifted
from the car. Ms. Sunita Suman (PW30) affirmed that the blood was
of group "B", which matches the blood group of the deceased.
33. Karnail Singh (PW20) in his deposition has stated that on the
intervening night of 4th and 5th February, 2010, at 12.30 AM
(midnight), he was waiting outside his shop for a supply vehicle. He
had then seen a steel-grey Maruti car driven by Malkeet Singh
entering the Gurudwara. PW20 had often seen Malkeet Singh getting
the said vehicle, thus he has affirmed that Malkeet Singh knew how to
drive. After about half an hour or 45 minutes, mother of Malkeet
Singh, namely Jasbir Kaur opened the Gurudwara gate and the same
car came out. The car was being driven by Malkeet Singh and
Sukhpal Singh was sitting in the car. Since there was ample light
from the shop and from the Gurudwara, he could see that something
was lying on the back seat. Jasbir Kaur had closed the door of the
Gurudwara. He was called to the police station on 22nd February,
2010, and had identified the car. In his cross-examination, Karnail
Singh (PW20) has stated that he had disclosed this fact regarding
Maruti car to the police on 5th February, 2010. Learned counsel for
the appellants have submitted that statement of PW20 under Section
161 Cr.P.C. regarding his presence and purported event in the
intervening night of 4th and 5th February, 2010 was recorded on 22nd
February, 2010. However, this factum was not confronted and Insp.
Mahavir Kaushik (PW31) was not questioned on the delay and cause
thereof. It is apparent that only after the car was recovered, blood
stains were found by the experts. In view of the blood stains,
prosecution has been able to connect and link between the car in
question with the dead body. The delay in recording of statement of
PW20 in the present case, would not justify rejection or ignoring his
court deposition. The CFSL report (Ex.PW30/A and B) affirm and
corroborate the testimony of PW20. The admitted position is that
Karnail Singh (PW20) had a shop in the Gurudwara complex and was
dealing with building material. The contention of the appellant that
Karnail Singh (PW20) had given the colour of the car as steel-grey,
whereas the colour of the car was white is devoid of any substance.
White and silver-grey colours look alike and can be easily mistaken to
be one another. As per the store-room register also the car was of MB
silver colour. The seizure memo (Ex.PW14/B) mentions the colour
of the car as MB Silver.
34. Dr S. Lal (PW16) in his post-mortem report (Ex.PW16/A)
opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem
strangulation by means of ligature possibly caused by ligature
material present around the neck. The said injury, i.e. Injury No.7 was
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos.1 to
6 could have been caused by blunt force object. The said report
records the time since death as about 1 week to 1 ½ week. Dr S. Lal
(PW16) in his report (Ex.PW16/B) opined that the Injury Nos.1, 2, 3,
4 and 5 could have been caused by Noon Kutna (Ex.P11) which was
produced before him for examination. The report (Ex.PW16/B)
carries a sketch of the weapon along with its dimension.
35. The post mortem report (Ex.PW16/A) records the following
injuries:
1. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1.0 cm, muscle deep in center of forehead placed
5.0 cm above the bone of nose placed just right to the midline.
2. Lacerated wound 1.0 x 0.1 cm, muscle deep just above eye-brow.
3. Lacerated wound 1.0 x 0.4 cm muscle deep over right mandibular area
over lower border placed 5.0 cm right to tip of chin.
4. Lacerated wound 1.3 x 0.5 cm, muscle deep with swelling over upper
1/3rd of left leg in front placed 9.0 cm below the lower border of patella.
5. Reddish bruise with swelling of right middle of leg with fracture of both
underlying bone in middle.
6. Reddish bruise 5 x 2 cm over right side upper ** of chest just above the
shoulder blade.
7. Ligature marks and dry reddish brown ligature mark present around the
neck, both hyoid cartilage to complete around the neck. In front, it is 3.0 cm
broad and placed 9.0 cm below the tip of the chin. Right side: it is 3.0 cm broad
and placed 5.0 cm below angle of mandible and extent is such of ** where it is
3.0 cm broad and placed 10 cm below the occipital protuberance. It is 3.0 cm **
and faint placed 5.0 cm below the angle of mandible.
(** text unreadable)
36. Criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120-A IPC and is
punishable as a distinct offence under Section 120-B IPC. The
aforesaid provisions require and postulate reasonable ground to
believe that two or more persons had conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong. Section 120-A postulates an
agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act; or an act which
was not illegal, by illegal means. If the agreement with the aforesaid
intent is proved, then each and every person, who consorts in the
agreement or was in league, would be liable, whether or not he was
actually involved at every stage. Thus, an accused is treated as a co-
conspirator, when there is unity of object and purpose, though there
may be plurality of means, some of which may be unknown to a
conspirator. What makes a conspirator liable, is that all means
adopted or illegal acts done, must be and purported to be in
furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy. A conspirator would be
liable even if some of the steps were resorted to by one or other
conspirators without his knowledge. This would not affect the
culpability under Section 120-A, IPC, for in such cases there exists
mutual interest [see Yash Pal Mittal versus State of Punjab, AIR
1977 SC 2433 and State versus Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253].
37. An agreement of the aforesaid nature would normally have an
element of secrecy and it would seldom expressed formally in writing
or rarely spoken about freely to be heard by third persons.
Conspiracy is generally inferred from the surrounding circumstances,
prior and subsequent to the offence, including the conduct of the
person who is alleged to be a conspirator. A person is held to be a co-
conspirator if it is established and proved that the offence was
committed pursuant to a common design to which he was also a
party. The said inference can be drawn by necessary implications
from the facts proved (see Kehar Singh versus State, AIR 1998 SC
1883).
38. A conspiracy may be a continuing offence and continue to
subsist till it is executed, rescinded or frustrated by choice or
necessity. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 introduces
doctrine of agency and upon satisfaction of the conditions stipulated
therein, the acts done by one are admissible against other co-
conspirators, provided the said acts were committed during the
conspiracy. Further, for Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
to apply, there should be prima facie evidence affording a reasonable
ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons were members
of the conspiracy. When this is proved then anything said, done or
written by one conspirator with reference to common intention during
the conspiracy can be used against the other.
39. Turning to the evidence in the present case on the question of
conspiracy, the following facts have emerged:-
(i) There were disputes between the two factions over control of
the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta and other Gurudwaras. Lakhbir Singh,
who was the Mehant of the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta, belonged to
Baba Balbir Singh faction. The appellant Jasbir Kaur, her son
Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and Ranjeet Singh belonged to the
other faction headed by Baba Sarjeet Singh.
(ii) Husband of the appellant Jasbir Kaur, namely, Baldev Singh
was earlier the Head Granthi of the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta. Baldev
Singh was arrested and detained in a separate murder case at Patiala,
Punjab. Thereafter, the appellant Jasbir Kaur was appointed
Granthi/Jathedar of the Gurudwara by Baba Sarjeet Singh group.
Simultaneously, Baba Lakhbir Singh was also appointed as Head
Granthi/Jathedar by Balbir Singh group.
(iii) Lakhbir Singh and the appellant Jasbir Kaur were residing in
the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta.
(iv) There was inter se litigation between the appellant Jasbir Kaur
and the deceased Lakhbir Singh as to the appointment of Head
Granthi of the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta.
(v) In the night intervening 3rd and 4th February, 2010, family
members of the deceased Lakhbir Singh were not present.
(vi) The sewadaar of the Gurudwara, namely, Pyara Singh (PW14)
was also not present in the night intervening 3rd and 4th February,
2010 and had gone to Punjab.
(vii) Harsimran (PW11) who was residing in the Gurudwara for the
last 2-3 months and had returned after giving tuitions at about 10
P.M. on 3rd February, 2010. He had then spoken to and interacted
with Lakhbir Singh. PW11, thereafter, went to sleep. Deceased
Lakhbir Singh had told PW11 that he would remain awake.
(viii) On 4th February, 2010 at about 5 A.M., the appellant Ranjeet
Singh @ Baaz Singh, who was a sewadaar, informed Harsimran
(PW11) that the deceased Lakhbir Singh had gone away and would
return in the evening. PW11 was asked to perform prayers after
taking bath. PW11 found this unusual and suspicious because
Lakhbir Singh would normally hand over the keys to him before
having the Gurudwara. Lakhbir Singh did not return. PW11 had then
questioned the appellant Ranjeet Singh, who in turn had cast
aspersions on Lakhbir Singh claiming that he had an „evil eye‟ on
Harsimran‟s sister. PW11 had never seen the deceased Lakhbir Singh
teasing her sister and his sister had not made any such complaint.
(ix) The appellant Jasbir Kaur on 4th February, 2010, had
pressurised and asked Harsimran (PW11) to leave the Gurudwara and
shift to the residence of his relative at Uttam Nagar. PW11 had
refused and asserted that he would not leave till Lakhbir Singh
returns.
(x) Rajender Singh, son of the deceased Lakhbir Singh came to
Delhi from Punjab after being informed by Karnail Singh (PW20)
that his father was missing. He had tried to contact his father on his
mobile phone, which was switched off. He had also contacted
acquaintances and relatives, but his father could not be traced and no
clue surfaced. He noticed that the bunch of keys and Kirpan of his
father were missing. Slippers of his father were found by him in the
toilet. He also spoke to Harsimran (PW11), who had then narrated
and informed him the sequence of events. Anil Kumar Lali, a relative
(father‟s brother) of Rajender Singh (PW12) had come to Delhi on 4th
October, 2010 and had also made inquiries from Harsimran (PW11)
and others. Rajender Singh (PW12) deposed that on 4th October,
2010, they had spoken to the appellant Ranjeet Singh and inquired
about the deceased, but he ignored them and went away with the
appellant Sukhpal. At about 6.15 P.M., Sukhpal came back to the
Gurudwara. PW12 had then confronted Sukhpal and was informed
that appellant Ranjeet Singh had gone to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib
and would return by night. At about 7 P.M., Anil Kumar Lali went
away and returned to his native place.
(xi) Rajender Singh (PW12) made a complaint marked Ex.PW12/A
to the police. The complaint records that PW12 suspected that his
father had been kidnapped by the appellant Sukhpal.
(xii) On 10th February, 2010, a dead body recovered in the
intervening night of 4th and 5th February, 2010, near Nehru Vihar
Mor, Timarpur was identified to be that of Lakhbir Singh. The dead
body was subsequently identified by Rajender Singh (PW12), Hakum
Singh and others. PCR van In-charge SI Sheo Raj Singh (PW18) had
found the said dead body in the intervening night of 4 th and 5th
February, 2010, at about 2.30 P.M. Recovery of the dead body has
been proved by Inspector Rajnish Parmar (PW22). The dead body
was found in a jute gunny bag (bori) and was half-naked with the
hands tied behind the waist. Hair of the beard and the head appeared
to have been partially burnt. FIR No.32/2010 was registered at the
police station Timarpur under Section 302 IPC. The name and
identity of the dead body was ascertained by the Investigating Officer
Inspector Mahavir Kaushik (PW31), who had taken over the
investigation only on 10th February, 2010, on the basis of the
photographs.
(xiii) On 11th February, 2010, Crime Team was called and the room,
where the deceased Lakhbir Singh used to reside, was inspected. The
blood stained articles, i.e. quilt (rajai), the mattress (chatai) and the
two legs of the table were seized and taken into possession. This
proves that the offence in question had taken place in the Gurudwara
itself. The appellants Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet Singh, Sukhpal Singh and
Ranjeet Singh went missing and absconded once it was known that
Lakhbir Singh had been murdered. On 13th February, 2010, the
appellants Jasbir Kaur and Sukhpal were apprehended and arrested
and made disclosure statements, Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/D,
respectively.
(xiv) Pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.PW14/D), made by the
appellant Sukhpal, store-room of the Gurudwara was inspected on
13th February, 2010 by the Crime Team. Some burnt hair (Ex.P12)
and blood was found in the store-room. On pointing out of appellant
Sukhpal, blood stained Tirpal (Ex.P4) was recovered from the store-
room. Sukhpal also got recovered the weapon of offence, i.e. Noon
Kutna (Ex.P11) from the room of Lakhbir Singh.
(xv) The appellant Jasbir Kaur got recovered the blood-stained
chola (Ex.P7) of Sukhpal, which was worn by Sukhpal at the time of
incident and which was washed later on.
(xvi) On 18th February, 2010, the appellant Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz
was apprehended from Tamtan Singh Gurudwara, Haryana and
formally arrested at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, and pursuant to the
disclosure statement Ex.PW13/C, his blood-stained cloth (Ex.P9
colly.) were recovered.
(xvii) The FSL report Ex.PW30/A was proved by Dr. Sunita Suman
(PW30), Senior Scientific Officer (Biology). She has deposed that
human blood of group B was found on the following articles:-
(a) Rajai, (b) Bori, (c) cloth used to tie the body, (d) towel, (e)
blanket, (f) cloth tied around waist, (g) blood gauze, and, (h)
blood lifted from the car.
Human blood was found on the following articles, but blood group
could not be ascertained on the following articles:-
(a) Chatai, (b) legs of the wooden table, (c) stone pieces, (d)
stone pieces earth control, (e) jacket, (f) dirty cloth used for
cleaning blood, (g) soil as earth with blood, (h) ligature
material, (i) dirty shirt, (j) one sleeve, and (k) scalp hair.
The blood group of the deceased Lakhbir Singh was "B".
(xviii) PW30 has also deposed that human blood of group B was
found on the cloth piece having brown stains described as blood lifted
from Maruti car. The said blood stains at Maruti car was lifted by the
FSL Team.
(xix) Krishan Murari Tiwari (PW17) has deposed that he was the
owner of Maruti car bearing No.DL2CV-4256 and the appellant
Jasbir Kaur was known to him. Her son, i.e. the appellant Malkeet
Singh used to borrow his car.
(xx) For the reasons mentioned above in detail, we have reached the
conclusion on the basis of the testimony of PW17 that the car was
borrowed by the appellant Malkeet Singh in the late night intervening
between 4th and 5th February, 2010.
(xxi) Karnail Singh (PW20) has deposed that he was having and
operating a shop from the Gurudwara Rab da Kutta and dealing in
building materials. On the intervening night of 4th and 5th February,
2010, he was waiting for his supply when at about 12.30 A.M.
(midnight), he had noticed that the appellant Malkeet Singh had
driven the car inside the Gurudwara. Malkeet Singh used to reside in
the Gurudwara. He had often seen appellant Malkeet Singh driving
the said car. After about half an hour or 45 minutes, the appellant
Jasbir Kaur opened the door of Gurudwara and Malkeet Singh drove
out the car with Sukhpal sitting by the side. In the light, PW20 could
see something lying on the back seat of the car.
(xxii) The dead body of Lakhbir Singh was found near Nehru Vihar
Mor, Timar Pur in the intervening night of 4th and 5th February, 2010
at about 2.30 A.M. SI Sheo Raj Singh (PW18) has deposed that when
he reached the spot, he found that a dog was barking towards the
drain. This indicates that the jute gunny bag had been dropped/thrown
at the place in question, recently.
(xxiii) The medical evidence, i.e. the post-mortem report
(Ex.PW16/A) records that the deceased had died due to asphyxia.
There was ligature mark and the report opines that the death was due
to ante-mortem strangulation. There were ante-mortem injury Nos.1
to 6, which could have been caused by a blunt force object. Dr. S. Lal
(PW16), who had conducted the post-mortem, opined that injury
Nos.1 to 5 could have been caused by the Noon Kutna (Ex.P11),
produced before him for examination. Time since death as per the
post mortem report Ex.PW16/A was about 1 to 1½ week. PW16 in
his court deposition had stated that time since death in the present
case was between 1 to 1½ week. The post-mortem report examination
was conducted on 12th February, 2010. The opinion given by PW16
matches and affirms with the prosecution version as to the time when
the offence was committed.
40. The aforesaid enunciation of facts reflects a chain and a fluidic
concert in action, which predicates and affirms existence of a
conspiracy. There was a common design, motive, unison and intent
of understanding relatable to the crime. Concordance is clearly
perceptible and can be readily inferred.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in
the present appeals and uphold the conviction of Jasbir Kaur, Malkeet
Singh, Sukhpal, and Ranjeet Singh @ Baaz. We maintain the
sentences but would reduce the fine of Rs.25,000/- each imposed for
the offence under Section 302 IPC to Rs.5,000/- each and would
direct the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- each under
Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased Lakhbir Singh.
In default of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence under
Section 302 IPC, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment of
three months. The sentences will run concurrently and Section 428
Cr.P.C. will apply.
42. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Trial court record
will be sent back.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
JUDGE
May 22nd, 2015
kkb/NA/VKR/n
