Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 10991 P&H

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M)                            -1-



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH.


                                            CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M)
                                            Reserved on: 08.09.2022
                                            Pronounced on: 12.09.2022


AMANDEEP SINGH                                                 .....Appellant


                                   Versus



STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                                     .....Respondents



CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT


Argued by: Mr. Lovepreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for
           Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate
           for the applicant-appellant.

             Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

             Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate
             for respondents No. 2 and 3.

             Mr. P.P.Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Charanjit Bakshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor,
             for U.T., Chandigarh.

                                 ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict,

rendered on 20.09.2017, upon case SC No.257/11 dated 12.10.2016, by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, with respect to charges

drawn against the respondents-accused, qua offences punishable under

Sections 302, 506, and, under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,

1 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -2-

1860, whereby, a verdict of acquittal was made upon them.

2. The complainant-aggrieved, son of the deceased Sukhdev

Singh through instituting thereagainst, the instant appeal before this

Court, has strived to seek the verdict (supra) becoming quashed, and,

set aside.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The above complaint was intially instituted by Avtar

Singh, on 16.04.2014, but since Avtar Singh died during the pendency

of the complaint leaving behind his legal representatives namely

Harcharan Kaur (widow), Gurdeep Singh, and, Manjit Singh (sons),

Amandeep Singh (grandson), and, Sharanjit Kaur (granddaughter).

Therefore, the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.06.2015 permitted

Harcharan Kaur widow of Avtar Singh to prosecute the complaint on

behalf of all the LRs of deceased Avtar Singh. However, subsequently

Harcharan Kaur also died, and, then the learned trial Court vide order

dated 19.01.2016, permitted Amandeep Singh, (grandson) of the

deceased to prosecute the complaint.

COMMITTAL AND TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

PHASE - I

4. Originally the complaint was filed by the complainant-

Avtar Singh before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sangrur, on 01.07.2009. After recording the preliminary evidence, the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, made a

summoning order on 27.04.2013, upon the accused to face trial for

commission of offences embodied under Sections 302, 506 read with

Section 34 of the IPC. The accused put their appearance before the

2 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -3-

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, and, the latter

committed the case for trial to the Court of Session. However, the

commitment order was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur

vide order made on 07.10.2013, as the relevant occurrence had not

taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the committing

Magistrate. The above order was unsuccessfully challenged by the

complainant before this Court, and, accordingly the complaint was filed

at Nabha.

PHASE- II

5. The learned Magistrate at Nabha after recording the

preliminary evidence, made a summoning order on 18.04.2016, upon

the accused to face trial for commission of offences embodied under

Sections 302, 506, 120-B of the IPC.

6. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively

triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the learned committal Court,

vide order dated 27.09.2016, committed the case for trial, to the Court

of the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala.

7. On finding a prima facie case, charge(s) under Sections

120-B, 302, and, under Section 506 of the IPC became framed, against

both the accused, and, to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed

trial.

8. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution led five

witnesses into the witness box. After completion of recording of the

depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Patiala drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and,

3 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -4-

pleaded innocence. The accused though opted to lead defence evidence,

but did not adduce any evidence in defence.

GENESIS OF THE PROSECUTION CASES, AS CARRIED IN THE COMPLAINT.

9. The genesis of prosecution case, becomes embodied in the

complaint (supra). The brief facts of the complaint are that Sukhdev

Singh son of Avtar Singh was married to Gurpreet Kaur in the year

1994. Out of their wedlock son Amandeep Singh, and, daughter

Sharanjit Kaur, were born. After the marriage Gurpreet Kaur developed

illicit relations with one Ramesh Puri. When Sukhdev Singh stopped

Ramesh Puri not to come in his house, then both the accused started

abusing, and, quarreling with him. In the month of October, 2007, the

accused threatened that if Sukhdev Singh, or, his family member tried

to interfere in their life, they would kill Sukhdev Singh, and, his

children. Both the accused told that they would get married with each

other. Thereafter, Ramesh Puri in the presence of both the children told

accused Gurpreet Kaur on telephone to get rid of Sukhdev Singh upon

which accused Gurpreet Kaur told that after some days, they would

together kill Sukhdev Singh. The said conversation was heard by

children of Sukhdev Singh in the month of November, December 2008,

Gurpreet Kaur used to go to meet Ramesh Kumar during night after

leaving the children at home. Ramesh Puri continued his illicit relations

with Gurpreet Kaur. Accused Ramesh Puri told himself to be sadhu of

Dera Banniwala Village Majha. On 03.12.2008, at about 7.00 A.M.,

children of Sukhdev Singh were present in the house. Both the accused

served Sukhdev Singh with poison laced food. At that time, both the

accused were wearing white gloves in their hands. They threatened the

4 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -5-

children not to narrate that incident to anyone otherwise, they would be

eliminated. At that time, Harcharan Kaur mother of Sukhdev Singh was

not present. After Sukhdev Singh was served with poison laced food,

and, due to strangulation, his condition had become critical. Both the

accused took his body to some other place and threw away at some

secluded place. Amandeep Singh and Sharanjit Kaur, children of

Sukhdev Singh narrated the entire story to their grandparents.

Thereafter, they started searching for Sukhdev Singh. On 03.12.2008,

accused Gurpreet Kaur did not come back to her house. Then on the

same day i.e. 03.12.2008 at about 8.00 P.M., they found Sukhdev Singh

lying unconscious in the fields of Ajaib Singh. They got him admitted

in Civil Hospital, Nabha where doctors declared him brought dead. On

04.12.2008, police registered a false report in connivance with both the

accused that Sukhdev Singh died natural death. In fact, he has been

murdered by both the accused by mixing some poisonous substance in

his food. The said occurrence was witnessed by Amandeep Singh, and,

Sharanjit Kaur. Thereafter, postmortem of the dead body of Sukhdev

Singh was got conducted. The accused forcibly took the children to the

Banniwala Dera, and, threatened them not to disclose incident of giving

poisonous substance to Sukhdev Singh, and, then strangulating him, to

anybody otherwise they will be killed. After the death of Sukhdev

Singh on 03.12.2008, both the accused got contracted marriage through

Court on 23.01.2009. They tried to forcibly pick up children of

Sukhdev Singh from the police of Police Station, Bhawanigarh.

Complainant filed a civil suit against the accused, and, SHO of Police

Station, Bhawanigarh which has been decided in his favour on

5 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -6-

29.04.2009. Thereafter, both the accused forcibly entered into the house

of Sukhdev Singh, and, took away Rs. 35,000/- in cash, 6-7 tolas of

gold, gas cylinder, and, one bicycle in a car. The custody of minors

Amandeep Singh, and, Sharanjit Kaur was handed over by SDM

Sangrur to the complainant, and, his wife Harcharan Kaur. The accused

moved false applications before the higher police officers for taking

custody of minor children, as they were eye witnesses of the murder of

Sukhdev Singh. Both the accused have killed Sukhdev Singh by giving

him some poisonous substance, and, then strangulating him. On

15.06.2009, when complainant, and, his wife along with children were

going to appear before DSP (D) Sangrur at Police Lines, then both the

accused along with some unknown persons came there, and, tried to

kill all of them, but they saved their lives by running from there.

DISCUSSION, AND, CONCLUSIONS FROM THE DEPOSITIONS OF MATERIAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES PW-1 and PW-2.

10. The star prosecution witness, is one Amandeep Singh, who

stepped into the witness box as PW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he

has supported the version, as carried in the complaint. He has deposed

with firmness that both the accused were having an illicit relationship,

and, that they both intended to marry each other. Furthermore, he

testifies that his overhearing a telephonic conversation, as made by co-

accused Gurpreet Kaur to co-accused Ramesh Puri, to the effect that

they will kill the deceased, and, marry each other. Moreover, he has

deposed that on the ill fated day, he had witnessed his mother Gurpreet

Kaur preparing a sweet dish, and, also witnessed that accused Ramesh

Puri had brought some liquid substance in a small bottle, which his

6 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -7-

mother mixed in the sweet dish, and, served it to his deceased father,

who after consuming the sweet dish, suffered deterioration in health.

Thereafter, he deposed that both the accused were wearing white gloves

at that time, and, both of them strangulated the neck of his father. He

has continued to testify that the above occurrence was also witnessed

by his younger sister. The reason for his not reporting the incident

earlier, is stated by him, to arise from threatenings' being meted to him,

and, his sister by both the accused. He was subjected to a rigorous cross

examination. During the course of his cross examination, he admitted

that his statement in his examination-in-chief about accused Ramesh

Puri, on the relevant day bringing some liquid substance, is not

recorded in his previous statement. He has also admitted that his

statement in the examination-in-chief about his mother mixing the said

liquid substance, in the sweet dish, was also earlier not recorded in his

previous statement. Therefore, the above facts occurring in his

examination-in-chief are but an improvement, or, an embellishment.

Consequently, the factum of his eye witnessing co-accused Ramesh

Puri, to, on the relevant day, bring a liquid substance in a bottle, as also

his statement in his examination-in-chief that his also witnessing his

mother to mix the same in a sweet dish which became consumed by his

deceased father, leading to deterioration in his health, obviously does

come under a cloud of doubt.

DEPOSITION OF PW-2 AND ITS EFFECT

11. PW-2 is the sister of PW-1, and, in her examination-in-

chief though she has corroborated the version, as spelt by PW-1, in his

testification. However, in her cross examination, she has denied

7 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -8-

suggestions that her deceased father had met a natural death. Even

though in her cross examination, no suggestions became meted to her

with respect to hers' falsely stating, that on the relevant day, co-accused

Ramesh Kumar had brought to her home, a liquid substance in a bottle,

nor, any cross examination is made upon her with respect to her stating

that her mother mixing the same in the food served to her deceased

father, who after consuming it suffered deterioration in his health.

12. Nonetheless, when PW-1 has been concluded to improve,

or embellish, the above echoed facts, as existing in his examination-in-

chief, as also, when he testifies that at the relevant time his younger

sister PW-2 was available at the crime site. Therefore, the effect of the

above inference qua the above testification existing in the examination-

in-chief of PW-1, hence becoming incredible, is that, even the

statement of PW-2, his younger sister also becomes untruthful.

Necessarily qua hers' speaking about co-accused Ramesh Puri, on the

relevant day bringing a bottle of liquid substance, besides qua hers' also

further speaking that her mother mixed the same in the food served to

her deceased father, who after consuming it suffered deterioration in his

health.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE COMPRISED IN THE POST-MORTEM REPORT OF THE DECEASED

13. The post-mortem report, is comprised in Exhibit PW-3/A,

the same was proven by PW-3. Upon PW-3 stepping into the witness

box, he in his examination-in-chief has testified that when he made an

autopsy on the body of the deceased, his noticing the hereinafter

extracted facts.

                                  8 of 16

 CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M)                            -9-

" There was no visible external injury on the dead body. The viscera of the dead body was preserved in a jar and sealed by me with my seal bearing impression DK and handed over to HC Pawan Kumar for sending the same to the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar. The cause of death was to be declared after the receipt of report of chemical examiner."

14. In his cross-examination, he admitted a suggestion that in

some cases of consumption of poison, or, any intoxicant material, it

leads to froth coming out of his, or, her mouth, and, has also deposed

that he has not noticed froth coming out of the mouth of the deceased.

Moreover, he has also deposed that he did not observe the existence of

any external injury marks on any part of the body of the examined

deceased. Therefore, the absence of any external injury marks on any

part of the body of the deceased, does prima facie bely the depositions

of PWs (supra), that their deceased father was strangulated by the

accused.

CONCLUSIONS

15. Be that as it may, even if this Court hence prima facie

belies the oral testifications of the PWs (supra). However, even if their

respective testifications are wanting in any legal vigor, yet when the

motive for the crime arising from both accused having an extra-marital

affair, besides intending to marry, when is clearly, and, consistently

established by both. Resultantly with cogent proof qua motive (supra),

becoming adduced, therefore, may be, the same did lead both the

accused to even in the absence of PWs (supra), at the crime site, hence

administer poison to the deceased. If so, the report of the chemical

examiner on the viscera of the deceased, as sent to the FSL, for

examination, comprised the foremost best forensic evidence for

9 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -10-

declaring the charge to become unflinchingly proven. However, neither

the viscera of the deceased was sent for examination to the FSL

concerned, nor any report about poison being present therein was

adduced before the Court. Resultantly in its absence, a verdict of

acquittal was made upon the accused.

THE EFFECT OF NON PRODUCTION OF REPORT OF THE FSL AND ITS EFFECT.

16. This Court on 28.02.2018, had referred to paragraph 15 of

the impugned verdict, para whereof stands extracted hereinafter.

"The trial Court has made the following observations in Para 15 of the impugned judgment which is as under:-

"15. Dr. Dalbir Kaur posted as SMO at Civil Hospital, Nabha who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sukhdev Singh while appearing as PW3 has proved post mortem report as Ex.PW3/A on the file. She further stated the dead body was brought by HC Pawan Kumar no.2414 of Police Station Sadar Nabha and it was identified by Gurdeep Singh and Kulwinder Singh. There was no visible external injury on the dead body. The viscera of dead body was preserved and sealed with her seal bearing impression DK and handed over to HC Pawan Kumar for sending the same to the office of Chemical Examiner. The cause of death was to be declared on receipt of report of Chemical Examiner. She further stated that report has not been received as yet. Thereafter, the examination in chief of witness was deferred as report of Chemical Examiner was not received. Dr.Dalbir Kaur again appeared in the court on 8.8.2017 and she stated that report of Chemical Examiner has not been received by her. Thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor made a request for adjourning the case. However, the said request was declined by this Court and Dr. Dalbir Kaur stated that she could tell the cause of death only on receipt of report of Chemical Examiner. She further stated that she handed over viscera of deceased Sukhdev to HC Pawan Kumar on 5.12.2008. In her cross examination she stated that there was no external injury mark on the body of deceasd Sukhdev Singh.

                                 10 of 16

 CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M)                            -11-



                    She admitted that no froth was coming from the

mouth of deceased. She admitted that in some cases if poison or intoxicated material is administered to a person then froth comes from the mouth of said person."

Learned counsel for the State is directed to respond to the above observation as to why report of Chemical Examiner was not produced by the prosecution before the Court. Explanation shall be tendered by the concerned officer of the police department. This shall be done within four weeks from today........."

17. A reading of the hereinabove extracted paragraph does

reveal that though the viscera of the deceased was preserved, and, was

sealed with seal bearing impression "DK", and, was handed over to HC

Pawan Kumar for sending the same to the Office of Chemical

Examiner, for an opinion being made thereons. However, as stated

(supra), the report of the Chemical Examiner was never received, nor,

was tendered in the Court. Therefore, since the report, if any, of the

Chemical Examiner, as made on the viscera of the deceased, comprised

the best scientific evidence to prove the charge drawn against the

accused, but since the viscera of the deceased never became sent, nor,

became received in the laboratory concerned, nor when any opinion

was made thereons, besides obviously when the report of the Chemical

Examiner also never became tendered into evidence. Resultantly a

verdict of acquittal was aptly made upon the accused. However, the

above gross omission shook the judicial conscience of this Court, and,

led it to make a direction to the State of Punjab, to assign a reason, for

the non-production of the report of the Chemical Examiner, in the

Court.

18. The above made order led to the filing of an affidavit by

the State of Punjab with a statement therein, that the carrier constable,

11 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -12-

who was deputed to carry the viscera of the deceased to the forensic

laboratory had not deposited the same in the laboratory concerned.

Though appropriate action against him was drawable, but the said

constable was stated to expire. However, this Court had yet opened a

wider issue with respect to the delays in the making of analyses on the

items/material sent to the FSLs, located in the State of Punjab, State of

Haryana, and, U.T., Chandigarh. This Court was led to make a direction

to the States of Punjab, Haryana, and U.T., Chandigarh to assign an

explanation, as to why steps are not being taken to provide adequate

scientific instruments, and, adequate staff in the laboratories concerned,

and, as to why steps are not being taken to propose the establishment of

such laboratories at each, and, every district. In addition, affidavits in

the above regard were directed to be filed by all concerned.

19. On 24.08.2018, this Court felt that at least one laboratory

for two, or, three adjoining districts would ease the pressure of work on

the laboratories concerned. On 19.09.2018, this Court again expressed

that delays in testing of the samples at the laboratories concerned,

results in delay in presentation of challan. Moreover, also a reading of

the order made on 23.01.2019 by this Court, relevant portion whereof

becomes extracted hereinafter, reveals that a sum of Rs. 10 Crores, and,

10 lacs, have been sanctioned by the Punjab Government, for the

relevant purpose, but despite earlier expressions being made by this

Court about compensation being paid to the appellant, yet there being

no commitment on the part of the State of Punjab.

"..............Prima facie, we are satisfied with the statement made in the affidavit about the steps undertaken by the Punjab Government which are in the right direction. It is stated that an amount of Rs.10 Crores and 10 lacs has been

12 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -13-

sanctioned by the Punjab Government for the said purpose. We are afraid the amount would be released so as to complete the project within reasonable period. There is no commitment about compensation to the appellant as stated. We therefore expect the schedule of release of funds for completion of project......"

20. This Court has been pained, not only about the deficit

number of laboratories in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and, U.T.

Chandigarh, but is also pained at the shortage of staff thereins, besides

is pained at the lack thereins of the state of art scientific

equipment(s)/instrument(s). The FSLs concerned, purvey the best

scientific forensic evidence, for enabling the Courts of Law, to

administer justice, and, are an inseparable part of the justice

dispensation mechanism. Therefore, when there is, since the year 2017,

obviously an increase in the number of criminal matters, hence

necessitating the investigating officers concerned, to avail the

laboratory facilities. However, the enormous increase in crime rate, has

not made a corresponding increase in the numbers of laboratories in the

States of Punjab, Haryana, and, U.T., Chandigarh, which has but

ultimately resulted in enormous delays occurring in testings' being done

at the laboratories in the above States of Punjab, Haryana, and, U.T.,

Chandigarh. The further effect thereof, is that, in some cases there

being delay in the institution of reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,

before the judicially empowered Magistrate, resultantly in the

offenders' claiming default bail. The above situation would not occur in

case to cope with the pressure of work at the laboratories concerned,

either the man power therein is increased or more laboratories are

established within the territories (supra).

21. It is on account of delays in testings' at the laboratories

13 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -14-

concerned, that either there is a disintegration, or, deterioration of the

items/samples sent to the laboratories for theirs' making analyses

thereons. Moreover, the above situation also leads to verdicts of

acquittals being pronounced. The above can easily by undone through

the States of Punjab, Haryana, and, U.T., Chandigarh, ensuring that the

laboratory testing facilities corresponding to the increase in crime, also

become expeditiously increased in each of the above territorial

jurisdictions.

22. Therefore, this Court directs that all above shall, after

collecting data about backlog of materials/items to be tested, at the

laboratories concerned, besides with a futuristic vision about increased

tendency towards criminality in society, leading to an increase in crime

rate, hence ensure but after obtaining all requisite approvals from the

authorities concerned, that laboratories with state of art

instrument(s)/equipment(s) become established within the territorial

jurisdictions (supra). The approvals to be sought by each above, from

the competent authorities concerned, shall also relate to overcoming the

shortages of staff in the laboratories concerned. The approvals be

ensured to be secured within three months hereafter, and, subsequently

all concerned (supra), are directed to ensure that within a year hereafter,

hence state of art of forensic science laboratories, corresponding to the

increase in crime rate, are established within the territories of Punjab,

Haryana, and, U.T., Chandigarh. The above increases in laboratory

testing facilities in the above territorial jurisdictions, is but a dire need

to enable the Courts of Law to dispense justice in an expeditious

manner.

                                      14 of 16

 CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M)                            -15-

24. This Court, as above stated, has earlier expressed that the

State of Punjab, irrespective of a verdict of acquittal, being made upon

the accused to, and, that too squarely on account of non deposit by a

deceased official of the Punjab Police, of the viscera of the deceased in

the laboratory concerned. Emphasizingly, if the viscera of the deceased

had become deposited at the FSL concerned, and also if an analyses

was made thereons, but may have ensured the emergence(s) of best

scientific evidence to may be hence sustain the charge. However, since

the official concerned, who was handed over the viscera of the

deceased for its deposit in the FSL concerned, has since died.

Therefore, no disciplinary action can be ordered to be initiated against

him.

25. Nonetheless, it is but expected from the State of Punjab,

that on account of negligence of a constable in the Punjab Police, to, at

least, on the principle of its vicarious liability, qua the tort of its

servant, demonstrate a genuine commiseration towards the appellant,

inasmuch as, its depositing within three months from today, a sum of

Rs.10 lakhs, in his Savings Bank Account.

FINAL ORDER BY THIS COURT

26. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit

in the appeal, and, is constrained to dismiss it. The impugned verdict of

acquittal, as made upon the respondents is maintained, and, affirmed.

27. The case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with

law, after the expiry of period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.

The records be forthwith sent down.

28. A copy of the above verdict be forthwith sent to the Chief

15 of 16

CRM-A-2300-MA-2017 (O & M) -16-

Secretaries of States of Punjab, and, Haryana, and, to the Home

Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh, for each making compliance with the

above directions, but with an intimation in respect thereof being made

within three months thereafter, to the Registry of this Court.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

(N.S. SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE

12.09.2022 kavneet singh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

16 of 16