Randhir Singh vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 14646 P&H

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M)
                                             Date of Decision : 18.11.2022

Randhir Singh
                                                             .....Appellant

                                 VERSUS


State of Haryana

                                                           .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :   Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate assisted by
            Mr. Gursher Singh Badal, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

KULDEEP TIWARI. J.

            The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 3.2.2014 and order of sentence dated 5.2.2014 passed by

the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the

appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable

under Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay fine of Rs.1 lac and in

default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year.

            The present case relates to a very unfortunate incident where

four persons were murdered in their house courtyard and for that three

persons, namely, Surjeet Singh, Uggar Singh son of Surjeet Singh and

Jaskaran Singh son of Uggar Singh faced the trial for the commission of




                               1 of 13
            ::: Downloaded on - 19-11-2022 11:56:57 :::
 CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M)                                         -2-

offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC

whereas Randhir Singh (present appellant) and one Balwinder Singh

(since deceased) faced the trial for the commission of offences punishable

under Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC. One of the accused,

namely, Amarjit Singh could not be arrested despite issuance of ordinary

process as well as proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, he

was declared proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. Accused,

namely, Balwinder Singh expired during trial and proceedings qua him

were abated by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.3.2013. The

learned trial Court finally acquitted Surjeet Singh, Uggar Singh and

Jaskaran Singh from the charges framed against them under Section 302

read with Section 120-B IPC. Whereas, the present appellant Randhir

Singh was held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under

Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced, as mentioned

above.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the present case, the investigation was set into motion on

the statement of Surjeet Singh @ Sheet Singh son of Ajmer Singh (who

was lateron transposed as one of the accused). The statement of Surjeet

Singh @ Sheet Singh reads as under:-

"I am resident of above said address and is an agriculturist by occupation. We are three brothers. Eldest is Malkiat Singh, then I and eldest to mine was Saudagar Singh. We alongwith our respective families are residing separately. My younger brother Saudagar Singh has already died about ten years ago. My brother is having three sons.

                               2 of 13

 CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M)                                        -3-

Eldest son was Yashpal Singh alias Raju, then Darshan Singh and eldest to him was Hardeep Singh alias Nikka. Two daughters are namely, Chhinder Kaur and Veerpal Kaur. Both are married. Eldest son Yashpal Singh alias Raju was married to Sunita Rani d/o Surjeet Singh, Caste Rajput Sodhi, resident of Amarpura Basti, Bathinda about eight months ago. This matrimonial ties was got solemnized by Boota Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, Caste Pandit, resident of Pipli. About four months ago, relation of Sunita became strained with her husband Yashpal Singh alias Raju and due to this, she went to her parental house at Bathinda. All the three sons of my brother Saudagar Singh and their mother Hardev Kaur were residing jointly. As usual, yesterday on 30.09.2010 in the night, they all after taking meal slept on their cots in courtyard of the house. Today, morning when I woke up and went there and saw that all the four were lying on their respective cots. On my alarm, none of them awoke, then I checked all the four persons for awaking them, I found them in dead condition. On seeing this scene then I raised alarm and on this several men and women from the neighbourhood came at the spot. We at our own level, checked them and found that there was no mark of injury on their bodies. Nor there was any sign of scuffle and mark of injuries and scratch. On the neck of all the four persons there was slight mark of bluish colour. It appears that some intoxicant have been served to them or they have consumed themselves. In this respect, neither I nor any members of my family have no suspicion on any person. Nor there is any suspicion on any of the villager.

There is no damage of any article in the house. The articles which are lying there, are in order. After leaving my son Uggar Singh near the dead bodies of the deceased,

3 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -4-

I and Sukhminder Kumar Sarpanch are coming to Police Station for giving information, and you met us at Bus Stand of village Pipli. I have recorded my statement which is correct. Sd/- Sheet Singh."

Thereafter the investigating agency proceeded to conduct

inquest report. Initially, a DDR was lodged. Thereafter the post-mortem

was got conducted on all the four deceased persons. The doctors opined

the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of throttling, which was

declared ante-mortem in nature. However, the doctors further observed

that the final opinion will be given on receipt of report of Chemical

Examiner. On the basis of the opinion of the doctors and the medical

report, the police registered present FIR under Section 302 IPC and

further proceeded with the investigation.

On 6.10.2010 supplementary statements of Surjeet Singh @

Sheet Singh and Malkiat Singh son of Ajmer Singh were recorded

wherein, they stated that they have come to know that Randhir Singh

(present appellant), who was working as Patwari in village Pipli, District

Sirsa alongwith Balwinder Singh (since deceased) had obtained thumb

impressions of deceased Jaspal Singh and Hardev Kaur on blank papers

while their bodies were lying in the mortuary with the motive to grab

their property. Upon these allegations, the appellant Randhir Singh and

Balwinder Singh (since deceased) were arrested on 7.10.2010. During

investigation, the appellant suffered a disclosure statement and in

pursuance of that four blank papers having thumb impressions were

recovered from his possession, out of four, two papers were having

inscripted words "LTI Jaspal Singh" and two papers were having

4 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -5-

inscripted words "RTI Hardev Kaur", apart from thumb impressions

alleged to be of deceased persons. Balwinder Singh during custody also

suffered a disclosure statement which led to recovery of one ink pad.

During investigation, with prior permission of the Court, the handwriting

of accused Randhir Singh was obtained so as to compare with the words

"LTI Jaspal Singh" and "RTI Hardev Kaur" inscripted on recovered

blank papers and sent to FSL, Madhuban for comparison. It is apt to note

here that during investigation, the appellant refused to undergo lie

detecting test. After completion of investigation, final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the SHO against the appellant and one

Balwinder Singh (since deceased) under Sections 420, 468, 34 IPC before

the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali.

During the course of investigation, on 20.7.2011 one Gian

Singh son of Inder Singh got recorded his statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and levelled allegations against Surjeet Singh, Uggar Singh and

Jaskaran Singh for commission of murder of aforesaid four persons. The

investigating agency after completion of investigation, filed challan

against the above three persons under Sections 302/449/420/468/34 IPC

and under Sections 420, 468, 34 IPC against the present appellant and

Balwinder Singh. The appellant and Balwinder Singh were tried before

the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali and as many as

12 witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court. However,

thereafter, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali

committed that case to the Court of Sessions with the observation that the

case against the appellant and Balwinder Singh is an off-shoot case of the

5 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -6-

main murder case titled as "State Vs. Surjeet Singh etc." Therefore, the

said case is required to be tried with that case. Thereafter, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa amalgamated both the cases vide order

dated 24.2.2012. As already mentioned above, all three accused, namely,

Surjeet Singh, Uggar Singh and Jaskaran Singh were finally acquitted

from the charges framed against them under Section 302 read with

Section 120-B IPC whereas, the present appellant was convicted and

sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 468

read with Section 120-B IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction

dated 3.2.2014 and order of sentence dated 5.2.2014.

SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant as

well as the learned State counsel at length and also perused the lower

Court record.

Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that

the learned trial Court has not appreciated the facts in its right perspective

whereas, there is no material evidence to connect the present appellant

with the alleged crime. It is argued that the learned trial Court completely

ignored the fact that the important material witnesses i.e. PW1 Sunil

Kumar and PW2 Malkiat Singh did not support the case of prosecution

and were declared hostile. It is argued that the Investigating Officer did

put any efforts to obtain the admitted thumb impressions of the deceased

so as to compare the same with the thumb impressions found on

recovered blank papers, therefore, caused serious dent into the case of the

prosecution. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove

6 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -7-

that the alleged recovered blank papers bear thumb impressions of

deceased persons. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the

statement of PW22 Mahabir Singh, IO who specifically admitted in his

cross-examination that he did not take the admitted thumb impressions of

the deceased for the purpose of comparison with the alleged forged blank

papers. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the cross-

examination of PW16 HC Mahender Singh, who categorically admitted

during cross-examination that on 14.6.2011, he stated before the learned

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali that "RTI of Hardev Kaur"

and "LTI of Jaspal Singh" on the blank papers Ex.PW16/1 to 4 were got

written by Mahabir Singh IO from the present appellant in the police

custody.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

On the other hand, the learned State counsel laid much

emphasizes upon the FSL report to establish that the handwriting on the

blank papers i.e. "LTI Jaspal Singh and "RTI Hardev Kaur", matches

with the handwriting of the present appellant. Apart from that, he further

submits that during the course of investigation, the appellant refused to

undergo lie detecting test for which an adverse inference can be drawn

against the appellant. He further submits that the trial Court has rightly

convicted the appellant and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, requires no

interference.

REASONS




                                   7 of 13

 CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M)                                        -8-

This Court is not examining the issue relates to the murder of

four persons as that issue stands settled. All the three persons mentioned

above were acquitted by the learned trial Court. Against the verdict of

acquittal, one of the victim, namely, Chhinder Pal Kaur preferred an

appeal before this Court vide Crl. Appeal D-1066-DB-2014 titled as

"Chhinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and others". The Division

Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 26.3.2015.

This Court is only examining the present case with regard to

appellant who was tried for the commission of offences punishable under

Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC and convicted accordingly.

The appellant was arrayed as an accused by the prosecution agency on the

supplementary statement of one Surjit Singh and Malkiat Singh. In their

statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was alleged that the appellant

alongwith Balwinder Singh had obtained thumb impressions of deceased

Jaspal Singh and Hardev Kaur on blank papers while their dead bodies

were lying in the mortuary. As already recorded above, Surjeet Singh

was lateron transposed as an accused by the investigating agency

whereas, Malkiat Singh was examined as PW2. Malkiat Singh stepped

into the witness box and did not support the case of prosecution and as

such, he was declared hostile. He was put to lengthy cross-examination

by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, nothing material could be

extracted during his cross-examination. Another witness which was cited

by the prosecution and examined during trial was PW1 Sunil Kumar. The

prosecution cited Sunil Kumar as witness to prove that the blank papers

which were recovered from the appellant were purchased by the appellant

8 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -9-

and Balwinder Singh from him. Moreover, when he stepped into the

witness box, he also did not support the prosecution case and was

accordingly declared hostile. On the other hand, PW22 Mahabir Singh

categorically admitted during cross-examination that he did not take

admitted thumb impressions of deceased for the purpose of comparison.

The relevant extract of statement of PW22 Mahabir Singh reads as

under:-

"I had gone through the investigation conducted prior to my taking over the same. There is no record with me to the effect that the thumb marks of the deceased were smudged in ink. I did not take the admitted thumb impressions of the deceased for the purpose of comparison with the thumb impression on Ex.PW16/1 to 4. The disclosure statements and other recovery memos and demarcation memos are in the hands of HC Mahender Singh."

The prosecution also examined HC Mahender Singh as

PW16, who in cross-examination, infact, demolished the prosecution

case. In his statement, he admitted that on 14.6.2011, he made a

statement before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali

that "RTI of Hardev Kaur" and "LTI of Jaspal Singh" on blank papers

Ex.PW16/1 to 4 were got written by Mahabir Singh IO from Randhir

Singh (present appellant) in the Police Station. The relevant extract of

the statement of PW16 Mahender Singh reads as under:-

"My statement was recorded before SDJM Dabwali on 14.6.2011. It is correct that I have stated in the court of SDJM Dabwali on 14.6.2011 that RTI Hardev Kaur and LTI Jaspal Singh on Ex.PW16/1 to 4

9 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -10-

were got written by Mahabir IO from Randhir Singh in the Police Station. It is incorrect that today I am intentionally making different statement from the one made by me before SDJM Dabwali on 14.6.2011, which is on judicial file."

So far as the report of FSL is concerned, it only establishes

that the words "LTI Jaspal Singh" and "RTI Hardev Kaur" were written

by the appellant. However, it did not prove that the alleged thumb

impressions on blank papers belong to the deceased persons.

The learned trial Court has unnecessarily swayed by the

statement of the appellant refusing to undergo lie-detecting test and

drawn adverse inference of this fact and recorded finding of conviction.

It is, infact, well established law that the Court may draw an adverse

inference on refusal against an accused to undergo lie detecting test.

However, the same cannot be the sole basis of conviction.

In State of U.P. Vs. Sunil, Criminal Appeal Nos.1432-1434

of 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that non-

compliance of Court directions to undergo lie detecting test may lead to

adverse inference. However, the same cannot be entertained as the sole

basis of conviction. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-

"Thus, we have noticed that albeit any person can be directed to give his foot-prints for corroboration of evidence but the same cannot be considered as violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. It may, however, be noted that non- compliance of such direction of the Court may lead to adverse inference, nevertheless, the same cannot be entertained as the sole basis of conviction."

10 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -11-

The learned Sr. counsel for the appellant relied upon Smt.

Selvi & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of

2004, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the

result obtained from the test such as Polygraph examination etc. shall be

treated as "personal testimony" and involuntary administration of every

such tests come within the scope "testimony compulsion" thereby

attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3). The relevant observation

of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:-

"In light of the preceding discussion, we are of the view that the results obtained from tests such as polygraph examination and the BEAP test should also be treated as `personal testimony', since they are a means for `imparting personal knowledge about relevant facts'. Hence, our conclusion is that the results obtained through the involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests (i.e. the narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and the BEAP test) come within the scope of `testimonial compulsion', thereby attracting the protective shield of Article 20 (3)".

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi

Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622 has laid five

conditions which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can

be said to be fully established in the case of circumstantial evidence. The

relevant portion reads as under:-

"A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully

11 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -12-

established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(') where the following observations were made:

"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based

12 of 13

CRA-S-792-SB-2014(O&M) -13-

on circumstantial evidence."

Thus, its clear that the prosecution has to prove all

circumstances beyond reasonable doubt from which conclusion of guilt is

to be drawn. Existence of those circumstances cannot be presumed by

the Court. The prosecution has to have discharged its onus by proving all

circumstances upon which it relies in order to connect the accused with

the crime. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to

complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish the guilt of the

accused.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and the legal

proposition discussed above, in my considered opinion, the appeal is

accepted.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of

conviction dated 3.2.2014 and order of sentence dated 5.2.2014 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa are, hereby, set-aside. The

bail bonds of the appellant stand discharged.

Pending application, if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

                                          (KULDEEP TIWARI)
18.11.2022                                     JUDGE
ajay-1
             Whether speaking/reasoned.         :     Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.                :     Yes/No




                               13 of 13