Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj Kaur vs Gurjeet Singh on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 151/2019
Raj Kaur W/o Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Jat
Sikh, Resident Of Baiya, District Sirsa (Haryana)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gurjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sucha Singh,
2. Sucha Singh S/o Sh. Atar Singh,
3. Harpal Kaur W/o Sucha Singh,
All By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Teliyawali Gali Fajilka,
Police Station Fajilka City (Punjab).
4. Sandeep @ Sheru S/o Kashimiri Lal, Behind Kalka Mata
Mandir Fajilka, Police Station Fajilka City (Punjab).
5. State of Rajasthan Through its PP
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana
Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
Mr. Pritam Solanki
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
JUDGMENT
Judgment pronounced on ::: 04/08/2021
Judgment reserved on ::: 26/07/2021
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellant complainant Raj Kaur for assailing the
Judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions
Case No.20/2017 (19/14 Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur)
(2 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
whereby, the respondents were acquitted from the charges under
Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC by giving them the benefit of
doubt.
2. Detailed arguments were heard on the question of admission
of this appeal.
The case pertains to murder of Buta Singh son of present
appellant. An unidentified dead body was seen trapped in the
mesh of the R.B. Minor Canal on 30.06.2013. Shri Rajendra Kumar
lodged a report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Ghamoodwali
regarding this discovery on which, the police reached there and
brought out the unknown male dead body with the assistance of
the villagers. A blue coloured jeans was found on the dead body.
The hands and legs were trussed by a rope. A driving license and
a Voter ID card were present in the trouser pocket of the dead
body and from these identifying documents, it was established
that the dead man was Buta Singh son of Sucha Singh, date of
birth 03.01.1989, resident of House No.430, village Kariwala,
Tehsil Raniya, District Sirsa. It was thereby concluded that some
unknown assailants had murdered and thrown the dead body in
the canal about 8-10 days ago.
On the basis of this report, an FIR No.112/2013 (Ex.P/27)
came to be registered at the Police Station Ghamoodwali for the
offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC and investigation was
commenced. After thorough investigation, a charge-sheet came to
be submitted against the respondents Gurjeet Singh, Sucha Singh
and Harpal Kaur in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Padampur for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC.
The case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions
(3 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar where, charges were
framed against the accused for these very offences. They pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as
34 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents to prove its case. The
accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were
confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the
prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to be
innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. Upon
conclusion of the trial, learned trial court heard the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties,
appreciated the evidence available on record and proceeded to
acquit the accused persons by the impugned Judgment dated
25.10.2018 which is assailed in this victim's appeal under Section
372 Cr.P.C.
3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have carefully re-appreciated
the evidence available on record.
4. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no eye-witness
of the incident and the prosecution case is based totally on
circumstantial evidence. We briefly proceed to consider the
evidence of material prosecution witnesses.
The witness Surjeet Singh (PW-6) claimed that a case of
attempted murder of Buta Singh by gunfire was filed against
Sucha Singh and Gurjeet Singh. Buta Singh took 6 Bighas of land
belonging to Sucha Singh and came to a compromise in the case.
The witness also stated that Sucha Singh had previously parted
with a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- and gave it to Buta Singh. These
(4 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
preceding events were portrayed to be the motive behind murder
of Buta Singh.
5. Naseeb Singh (PW-7) stated that Buta Singh was the son of
his aunt (Bua) Raj Kaur. His aunt was married to Sucha Singh,
who was previously married to Harpal Kaur and because of Court
order, he had to resume the matrimonial relationship with Harpal
Kaur and thus, Rajkaur was turned out of the house. Buta Singh
demanded his share in the property from Sucha Singh and being
annoyed thereby, Sucha Singh and his son from Harpal Kaur
namely Gurjeet Singh conspired together and tried to kill Buta
Singh by firing gunshots. A case was registered at the Police
Station Raniya in relation to this incident. For compromising the
matter, Sucha Singh gave 6 acres land to Buta Singh in the village
Kariwala. The witness further claimed that he and Buta Singh had
gone to Sirsa for watching a film. After watching the film, Buta
Singh went to meet his father at Fajilka. Buta Singh allegedly
called the witness and told him that he had reached his father's
home. The following day, Buta Singh's phone went unanswered
and seemed to be switched off. On 30.06.2013, he received an
information that Buta Singh's dead body had been found at
Ghamoodwali. He went there and identified the dead body.
Sukhdarshan Singh (PW-9) stated that there was a conflict
between Buta Singh and Sucha Singh which was later on resolved.
Sucha Singh gave 6 acres land and Rs.5,00,000/- to his son.
Gurmel Singh (PW-10) and Gurjinder Singh (PW-11) did not
support the prosecution story and were declared hostile.
(5 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
6. Raj Kaur (PW-12), the appellant herein, stated that she was
married to Sucha Singh in the year 1988. Seven months after her
marriage to Sucha Singh, she was turned out of the matrimonial
home. At that time, she was pregnant and started living at her
father's house at Kariwala where, Buta Singh was born to her in
the year 1989. Buta Singh pressed his father Sucha Singh for a
share of the property on which, a dispute arose and an attempt
was made to murder Buta Singh by firing gunshots. The parties
compromised the dispute and by way of settlement, Sucha Singh
gave 6 Kilas of land in the village Kariwala to Buta Singh.
However, Buta Singh persisted by exhibiting further demands
upon which, he was murdered.
The evidence of the witnesses Baldev Singh (PW-13),
Surender Kumar (PW-14) and Harvel Singh (PW-15) is formal and
inconsequential for proving the case against the accused.
Gurdeep Singh (PW-16), Sohan Lal (PW-17), Deepak
Sachdeva (PW-18) and Vipin Puri (PW-19) did not support the
prosecution case and were declared hostile.
7. Satnam Singh (PW-20) stated that Buta Singh was related to
him. On 27.06.2013, Sucha Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Buta Singh
met him at the Bus stand. Right there and then, Buta Singh called
the witness and asked him about his well being. He informed him
that he had come there to meet his father. Thereafter, Buta Singh
left with Sucha Singh and Gurjeet Singh. Some days later, he
came to know that the dead body of Buta Singh had been found in
a canal in Rajasthan. The witness admitted that Surjeet Singh and
Kuldeep Singh were his nephews. In cross-examination, the
witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/9) which
(6 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
was recorded on 16.09.2013, i.e. after nearly two and a half
months of the incident. In this statement, the witness did not
state that he met Buta Singh "at the Bus Stand". This witness was
portrayed to be a witness of circumstance of last seen but,
considering the fact that the witness is closely related to the
deceased but despite that he chose to remain silent regarding the
incident of having seen the deceased with the accused persons for
almost two and a half months, makes his testimony totally
unreliable and unworthy of credence.
Manish Kumar son of Prem Kumar (PW-21) and Manish
Kumar son of Bhupendra Das (PW-22) did not support the
prosecution case and were declared hostile.
8. Kailash Chand (PW-23) was posted as the Officer-In-Charge
of the police outpost Kariwala. He gave information regarding the
recovery of the dead body and the previous case lodged by Buta
Singh against Sucha Singh at the Police Station for the offence
under Section 307 IPC.
Maniram (PW-24) was a formal witness regarding the
transmission of the Maalkhana articles.
Bhoopram (PW-25) was posted as a constable at Police
Station Ghamoodwali and his evidence is formal in nature.
Sahiram (PW-26) was posted as a Circle Officer, Karanpur. He
conducted a part of investigation and his evidence is also
inconsequential to the case.
Vinod Kumar (PW-27) was posted as SHO Police Station
Ghamoodwali. He received the investigation of the case at an
advanced stage and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He
did not state anything implicating the accused in this case.
(7 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
Mahaveer Prasad (PW-28) was posted as Head Constable at
the Police Station Ghamoodwali and was a formal witness
regarding arrest of the accused Sandeep.
Naseeb Singh (PW-29) was declared hostile.
9. Manoj Kumar (PW-30) was posted as the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar. He conducted further
investigation in the case and found the case proved against the
accused Sucha Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Harpal Kaur and
recommended a charge-sheet against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC.
10. Devendra Kumar Bishnoi (PW-31) was posted as Additional
Superintendent of Police, Raisinghnagar. He also conducted a part
of investigation and during the course thereof, he collected the call
detail records and the tower locations of the mobile phones of
Buta Singh (the deceased) and the accused persons (Gurjeet
Singh and Harpal Kaur) and concluded that the offences were
proved against the accused. In cross-examination, the witness
admitted that the certificate (Ex.P/45) which he had received from
the Superintendent of Police, was pertaining only to one mobile
phone that of Buta Singh. He admitted that no certificate was
procured from the department.
11. Dalip Singh (PW-32) was the Officer-In-Charge of the Police
Station Ghamoodwali. He conducted the initial investigation
including registration of the FIR, taking out the dead body, getting
the postmortem carried out, etc. He did not state anything against
the accused.
(8 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
Bhadar Ram (PW-33) was also posted as a Constable at the
Police Station Ghamoodwali. He gave evidence regarding carrying
the Maalkhana articles/samples of the case to the FSL.
12. Laxman Singh (PW-34) was posted as SHO at Police Station
Ghamoodwali. He arrested the accused Sucha Singh, Harpal Kaur
and Gurjeet Singh. He claimed that acting in furtherance of the
information provided by these accused persons under Section 27
of the Evidence Act, certain places viz. where the murder was
allegedly committed; where the dead body was allegedly thrown,
were verified at the instance of the accused. However, suffice it to
say that no incriminating fact whatsoever was discovered during
this process.
13. After considering the evidence of all material prosecution
witnesses, it becomes clear that theory of motive portrayed by the
prosecution regarding Buta Singh staking a claim for his rights in
the properties of Sucha Singh and the accused persons being
annoyed thereby, is unsubstantiated because admittedly, the
dispute had been settled after lodging of the FIR No.104/2011
(Ex.D/1) for the offence under Section 307 IPC against the
accused persons in the year 2011. Buta Singh had already been
given his share of property and apparently, no significant
differences prevailed between the accused and the deceased
thereafter. If the evidence of the star prosecution witness Satnam
Singh (PW-20) is seen, he met Sucha Singh, Buta Singh and
Gurjeet Singh at the Bus Stand. Buta Singh told him that he had
come to meet his father. Nothing untoward was noticed by the
witness in the conduct/demeanor of Buta Singh. If at all, the
(9 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
accused and the deceased were not on good terms then, there
was no reason for Buta Singh to have come down to meet his
father. Manifestly, thus, the theory of motive portrayed by the
prosecution witnesses is flimsy and unacceptable.
On a perusal of the cross-examination conducted from
witness who was examined to prove the circumstance of last seen
together, it is clear that he came to know regarding murder of
Buta Singh 3-4 days after 27.06.2013. He claims to have informed
Surjeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh that he had seen the accused
persons with Buta Singh immediately after coming to know about
the recovery of the dead body. He stated that he came to Police
Station Kariwala 15-20 days after the 'Bhog' and his statement
was recorded at that time. However, as is evident, the police
statement of the witness (Ex.D/9), the statement was recorded as
late as on 16.09.2013 i.e. after about 2 months and 17 days of
incident. The absolute indifference of the witness in not divulging
this important fact to the police or even the close relatives of the
deceased, makes his testimony doubtful. Thus, the evidence of
witness Satnam Singh (PW-20) regarding the circumstance of last
seen together is totally unacceptable and was rightly discarded by
the trial court.
The information allegedly supplied by the accused persons to
the IO (PW-34) Laxman Singh did not result into recovery of any
incriminating material fact. Thus, the only semblance of evidence
which remains on record so as to connect the accused with the
crime would be in form of the call details records. Suffice it to say
that on a perusal of the evidence of Devendra Kumar Bishnoi (PW-
31) the Additional S.P., who collected the call detail records, it is
clear that he did not analyse the calls exchanged between the
(10 of 10) [CRLAD-151/2019]
accused and the deceased. The trial court analysed the call detail
records and found that the last call which was made by Buta Singh
was of 16.06.2013 i.e. about 10-12 days before the incident. The
presentation of the certificate issued by the service provider under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act is mandatory to prove electronic
record i.e. call details. However, the witness Shri Devendra Singh
Bishnoi, admitted in his cross-examination that the certificate
which he procured (Ex.P/45) only pertained to the call details of
the mobile phone allegedly in the use of the deceased. No witness
from the service providers concerned was examined to prove the
call details. Thus, the call detail records are also of no avail of the
prosecution and cannot be relied upon. Law in this regard is well
settled by the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908.
14. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the
prosecution could not lead any evidence whatsoever so as to
prove the charges against the accused respondents. The analysis
and the discussion of evidence undertaken by the trial court for
reaching to a finding that the prosecution could not prove its case
against the accused beyond all manner of doubt, is unimpeachable
and does not warrant any interference therein.
15. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
47-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
