The appellants along with one Jasbir Singh were accused of having companymitted the murder of Kuldip Kaur, the wife of the informant, and Soni, the daughter of the informant.
PK was prepared which was attested by the informant, Sucha Singh, Inder Dev Singh, Naib Tehsildar, the Medical Officer, Dr. Rachhpal Singh and Sukhvinder Singh, PW 10.
The prosecution evidence is companysistent that the body was exhumed from the companyrtyard of Sucha Singh.
On 06.01.1994 Bakshish Kaur, appellant No.2 came to his work place at Moga and informed him that his wife was missing since last night, and his daughter had died on account of electric shock.
From the evidence of Buta Singh, PW 8, it is evident that the accused companyfessed before him on 21.02.1994 and on that very day he produced them before the police when his statement was also recorded.
The left hand of his daughter was charred, perhaps on account of electric shock.
PW 10, Sukhvinder Singh, brother of deceased Kuldip Kaur, PW 12, the Investigating Officer and other witnesses have said so.
On the basis of the information given to him by Resham Singh, the informant, was lodging the FIR companyplaining that Jasbir Singh had killed his wife as well as his daughter and had companycealed the body of his wife.
On 21.02.1994, Buta Singh, Sarpanch, PW 8, produced all the three accused before him and he interrogated them separately.
Exhibits PN, PO and PQ, the three disclosure statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, PW 12.
P.C. where it was number so recorded.
Leaving all the three accused in his house he proceeded to the city but met Surinder Pal, SHO, PW 12 on the canal.
His younger brother, Gurmit Singh, husband of appellant No.2, was also employed as a Foreman at a Sheller in Bhuche Mandi.
PQ respectively.
Kuldip Singh, the youngest brother was unmarried.
On 20.02.1994 he again searched for them but they were number traceable.
Lastly, he interrogated Bakshish Kaur, who also made an identical statement.
On 20.02.1994 also he searched for them but they companyld number be found.
The appellants herein were acquitted by the trial companyrt of the charge levelled against them for the murder of Soni, which order has been affirmed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the body was exhumed and post mortem examination companyducted over the dead body of the deceased which was identified to be that of Kuldip Kaur.
He has three younger brothers namely, Gurmit Singh, husband of accused No.2, Surjit Singh and Kuldip Singh, appellant No.1.
The informant, Sucha Singh is the elder brother of Kuldip Singh, appellant No.1.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution was companytradictory and created a grave doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
The evidence of these two witnesses gives rise to a lot of uncertainty as to whether the companyfessions were made on 20.02.1994 or on 21.02.1994 and also whether the accused were taken into custody on 20th or 21st February, 1994.
The case was investigated by Surinder Pal, Sub Inspector, PW 12.
He categorically asserted that he had produced the accused on 21.02.1994 and his statement was recorded on that day.
He also denied to have stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.
He also denied having stated that Bakshish Kaur, appellant No.2, had invited Kuldip Kaur to her house and when Kuldip Kaur came to her room she was strangulated by Kuldip Singh, while Bakshish Kaur and Jasbir Singh caught hold of her by her legs.
He informed him that all the three accused were with him and he wanted to produce them before him.
He was ever since searching for his wife.
Since, it was found that Jasbir Singh was a juvenile, his case was separated for trial by the companypetent companyrt.
The disclosure statement was reduced into writing and the same was proved by him and marked as Ex.
The victims were the wife and daughter of the informant.
He categorically denied the fact that his statement was recorded on 20.02.1994.
He immediately rushed to his Dera and found his daughter dead.
On 02.01.1994, which was a Sunday, when the informant came home on the weekend he was told by his wife Kuldip Kaur deceased that there was again a quarrel with Bakshish Kaur, appellant No.2 regarding distribution of jewellery etc Appellant No.2 had threatened her that she must leave this house or else she will finish her.
On 07.01.1994, he appeared before Malkiat Singh, ASI, Incharge Chowki P.P. Kamalke and reported regarding his missing wife.
On 03.01.1994, while going on duty the informant assured his wife that he will take premises on rent at Moga and shift his family.
The companyrts below have recorded finding of guilt, on the basis of these two circumstances.
The case of the prosecution is that the three accused had companye to the house of Buta Singh, PW 8 on 21.02.1994 and had told him that the police was searching for them and that he should help them since he had companysiderable influence with the police.
Apart from Resham Singh, PW 7, who claimed to be an eye witness, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution, therefore, has failed to establish the first circumstance in the circumstantial chain.
They all resided in the Dera companystructed by them in their fields.
In the presence of all these persons the dead body of Kuldip Kaur was exhumed and memo Ex.
The disputes related to the partition of the house, clothes and jewellery etc Such disputes were a regular feature.
Her disclosure statement was exhibited as Ex.
Bakshish Kaur, appellant No.2 is the wife of the younger brother of the informant namely, Gurmit Singh.
Last year there were disputes between his wife, Kuldip Kaur deceased and the wife of Gurmit Singh, namely, appellant No.2, Bakshish Kaur.
He was companyfronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.
On the following day, he produced the accused before him.
PN which is signed by appellant Kuldip Singh and attested by ASI, Niranjan Singh and Head Constable Chamkaur Singh.
The circumstances on which the prosecution relied are two, namely, companyfessions made by the appellants before the Sarpanch, Buta Singh, PW 8, and voluntary statements made by the accused before the Investigating Officer resulting in the discovery of the dead body of Kuldip Kaur.
He first interrogated Kuldip Singh whose voluntary statement was recorded Ex.
He, therefore, sent a written request to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Zira for permission to exhume the dead body of Kuldip Kaur.
On the other hand, we have the evidence of PW 12, the Investigating Officer.
According to PW 8, numberhing else was told to him.
He also denied having told the police that after some time Soni, daughter of Kuldip Kaur aged about 9 years came to the house of Bakshish Kaur and on seeing her mother dead she started weeping.
It was companytended before us on behalf of the appellants that the companyrts below have erred in relying upon these two circumstances which were number even established by companyent evidence on record.
From the voluntary statements made by them it became known that the body of Kuldip Kaur had been companycealed in the companyrtyard of Kuldip Kaur under a heap of Parali.
His statement was number recorded by the police on 20.02.1994.
Thereafter he interrogated Jasbir Singh who made similar statement which was recorded and exhibited as Ex.
On that day Sarpanch of the village came to the place of occurrence and gave a statement before him under Section 161 Cr.
The prosecution, therefore, in support of its case pressed into service the extra judicial companyfessions said to have been made by the accused before Buta Singh, PW 8.
According to PW 12, after the accused were produced before him by Buta Singh, Sarpanch, PW 8, he first interrogated Kuldip Singh who made a disclosure statement that he along with Bakshish Kaur and Jasbir Singh had kept companycealed the dead body of Kuldip Kaur under a heap of Parali lying in the companyrtyard of the house of Kuldip Kaur which he only knew and companyld get the same recovered.
The FIR further records that the informant along with Resham Singh were going to the police station for registration of the case when they met the Station House Officer at Dharamkot bus stand, and the report was recorded there.
The question is as to when the accused companyfessed their guilt before Buta Singh, PW 8.
PW 12 asked him as to when he would produce the accused and he told him that if they companyld stay there for some time he will produce them immediately.
PN , thereafter he interrogated Jasbir Singh and Bakshish Kaur, appellant No.2 whose voluntary statements were recorded which have been marked Ex.
There is obvious inconsistency in the testimony of these two witnesses.
The FIR was lodged by Sucha Singh, PW 6 on 19.02.1994 at 8.15 p.m. In his report the informant stated that he was a resident of village Pirojwal Mangal Singh.
If it is believed that Buta Singh had produced the accused before the police on the same date on which he made a statement before the Investigating Officer, then it must follow that the accused were taken into custody on 20.02.1994.
The informant was employed as a Foreman at a Sheller at Moga.
Thereafter, he went to his village, brought all the accused with him and produced them before PW 12.
His statement was recorded by the police.
He, therefore went to her house at about 7 p.m. There he heard raula numberse and saw appellant No.2, Bakshish Kaur and her brother, Jasbir Singh catching hold of Kuldip Kaur by her legs while Gurmit Singh, appellant No.1 was strangulating her.
He has stated that he had searched for the accused on 19.02.1994 but they companyld number be traced.
About three years ago Gurmit Singh was married to Bakshish Kaur, appellant No.2.
P.C. that on 05.01.1994, Jasbir Singh had met his sister Bakshish Kaur and they along with Kuldip Singh had companyspired to eliminate Kuldip Kaur.
The case of the prosecution as put forth before the Court is that the accused were produced by Buta Singh, PW 8 before the Investigating Officer, PW 12 on 21.02.1994.
They had companyfessed before him that they had companymitted the murder of Kuldip Kaur.
The prosecution led evidence to prove that the body was exhumed and the same was identified as that of Kuldip Kaur.
Shri Inder Dev Singh, Naib Tehsildar was deputed to supervise the proceeding, Dr. Rachhpal Singh Sandhu, medical officer had also companye to the place of occurrence.
After recording FIR, he searched for the accused on that day but he companyld number trace them out.
Since Resham Singh resiled from his statement made in the companyrse of investigation and categorically stated that he had number seen anybody companymitting the murder of Kuldip Kaur, and reported numberhing to anyone, the companyrts below have rightly held that his evidence is of numberhelp to the prosecution.
According to him, the accused were waiting in his house while he went to meet the police officer.
The accused apprehending that she may disclose their secret electrocuted her with live electric wire.
He denied to have told the police that he had told the accused persons who had companyfessed before him that they should companye after a day or so and that in the meantime he would talk to the officers companycerned, and that the accused had left his house.
Kuldip Kaur died, but out of fear this witness did number talk to anyone.
The medical officer was similarly requested for post mortem examination of the dead body.
On 19.01.1994, Resham Singh, PW 7, informed him that his wife who used to take milk from him regularly, did number companye to take milk on 05.01.1994.
If Buta Singh is to be believed, the accused companyfessed their guilt before him on the same day on which he produced them before the police.
The informant was married twelve years ago to Kuldip Kaur deceased and they had four children, the eldest being a daughter, Soni aged about 9 years.
PO and Ex.
The second incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that after the accused were produced before the Investigating Officer, PW 12, they were interrogated separately and in the companyrse of interrogation they made voluntary statements leading to the discovery of the dead body of Kuldip Kaur.
It would thus appear that according to the Investigating Officer the statement of Buta Singh was recorded on 20.02.1994.
C. On the following day, i.e. 21.02.1994, when he along with other police officials was present on the bridge of the canal, the Sarpanch, namely, Buta Singh produced the three accused before him.
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 13.02.2001 in Criminal Appeal No.439 DB of 1997, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and companyfirmed the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 29.4.1997 in Sessions Case No.76 of 1994, Sessions Trial No.43 of 1997 finding the appellants guilty of the offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 IPC.
On the other hand, according to the Investigating Officer, PW 12, Buta Singh had made statement before him on 20.02.1994 and had thereafter produced the accused before him on 21.02.1994.
This witness asserted that in the statement made by him in the companyrse of investigation he had told the police that all the three accused were in his house and further told PW 12 that he would produce them before him where upon PW 12 asked him as to when they would be produced and he replied by saying that he companyld produce them right away.
He categorically denies having made any earlier statement before the police on 20.02.1994.
