As per case facts, Amritpal Kaur adopted Amrik Singh, who later allegedly beat and murdered her, possibly motivated by property. Her brother initiated the FIR, accusing Amrik Singh and his ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 111
IIIINNNN TTTTHHHHEEEE HHHHIIIIGGGGHHHH CCCCOOOOUUUURRRRTTTT OOOOFFFF PPPPUUUUNNNNJJJJAAAABBBB AAAANNNNDDDD HHHHAAAARRRRYYYYAAAANNNNAAAA
AAAATTTT CCCCHHHHAAAANNNNDDDDIIIIGGGGAAAARRRRHHHH
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444
DDDDaaaatttteeee ooooffff DDDDeeeecccciiiissssiiiioooonnnn:::: 11114444....11110000....2222000022225555
Amrik Singh and others …Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab …Respondent
CCCCOOOORRRRAAAAMMMM::::
HHHHOOOONNNN’’’’BBBBLLLLEEEE MMMMRRRR.... JJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT
HHHHOOOONNNN’’’’BBBBLLLLEEEE MMMMSSSS.... JJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE SSSSUUUUKKKKHHHHVVVVIIIINNNNDDDDEEEERRRR KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR
Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT,,,,
JJJJ....
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the
impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2004, whereby, the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
1111.... AAAAMMMMRRRRIIIIKKKK SSSSIIIINNNNGGGGHHHH
(1) Under Section 420 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
he shall further undergo R.I. for 6 months.
(ii) Under section 120-B IPC imprisonment for life and
to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he
shall further undergo R.I. for 1 year.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 2 222
(iii) Under section 467 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
he shall further undergo R.I. for 6 months.
(iv) Under section 302 IPC imprisonment for life and to
pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he
shall further undergo R.1. for 1 years.
2222.... GGGGUUUURRRRCCCCHHHHAAAARRRRAAAANNNN SSSSIIIINNNNGGGGHHHH
(i) Under sections 302/120-B IPC imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default payment of fine,
he shall further undergo R.I. for 1 year.
(ii) Under section 120-B imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo R.I. for 1 year.
(iii) Under section 420 IPC to undergo R.1. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
he shall further undergo R.I. for 6 months.
(iv) Under section 467 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
he shall further undergo R.I. for 6 months.
3333.... DDDDAAAARRRRSSSSHHHHAAAANNNN KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR....
(i) Under sections 302/120-B IPC imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of
fine, she shall further undergo R.I. for 1 year.
(ii) Under section 120-B imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, she shall
further undergo R.I. for 1 year.
(iii) Under section 420 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
she shall further undergo R.I. for 6 months.
(iv) Under section 467 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine,
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 3 333
she shall further undergo R.I. for 6 months.
However, the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently”.
2. The formal FIR Ex.PF/2 in the present case was initially
registered on the basis of the statement made by Ajaib Singh,
Lambardar and the same has been reproduced below:-
“Statement of Ajaib Singh Lambardar son of Inder Singh
caste Jat resident of ward No.l. Patran aged about 6 5
years.
Stated that I am resident of aforesaid address and am
doing the work of a agriculture. Beyond me I have five
brothers and two sisters and all of them are married. My
younger sister Amritpal Kaur was married to Amar
Singh of Badungar about 24/25 years back who
previously resided in a Kothi constructed near Goal
Chakar Model Town Patiala. My aforesaid brother-in-
law died after about 8 years of his marriage and my
widow sister Amritpal Kaur had no issue who alone got
constructed shops in kothi of Model Town Patiala and
maintained herself. My aforesaid widow sister felt
herself very much lonely who for her care and for
support in her old age had kept one Amrik Singh aged
about 20 years with her for the last about 2 years
treating her as son and our sister did not tell us much
regarding his family. Since the time Amrik Singh has
started living with our sister, our sister was fed of his
behaviour from the very beginning and whenever she
came to see us she told us about her grief that as to how
she met with the expenses to please her adopted son in
which she brought one Maruti Car and one Scooter by
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 4 444
selling the shop and brought machinery in her house.
Even then Amrik Singh did not leave his inferior
behavior about which on 1.4.02 when our sister Amritpal
came in her car alongwith Amrik Singh to see us and
told us that as to how Amrik Singh used to give her
beatings and threatened with dire consequences at the
time of demanding money. Today at about 01.00 P.M.,
the bell of my phone rang in my house and when I heard
the phone my widow sister Amritpal was nervous and
while crying she was saying that Amrik Singh will kill
her. In the meanwhile telephone was disconnected and I
without any delay alongwith my brothers Mewa Singh,
Gamdoor Singh and Kashmir Singh started for Patiala in
a private car. When we reached Samana Octroi Post
Patiala, our nephew Rambir Singh son of Mewa Singh
who is residing at Patiala stopped us and told us that the
dead body of our sister was lying in Rajindera Hospital,
Patiala. We reached there and saw that our sister was
lying dead due to grievous injuries on her head and was
smeared with blood. My aforesaid sister has been given
beatings and murdered by Amrik Singh who was kept by
her. He was thinking that after killing her he will become
the owner of property of my sister.
We four brothers were going to the police station with
the information of the unhuman act of the accused and
you have met. I have made my statement to you and have
heard the same and is correct”.
Attested
I/C M-Town Patiala.
Sd/- Ajaib Singh.in Panjabi”
3. After registration of the FIR, SI Tejinder Singh
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 5 555
alongwith other officials and complainant, reached Rajendera
Hospital, Patiala and prepared the inquest report and recorded the
statements of the witnesses. The postmortem was conducted on the
dead body of Amrit Pal Kaur, since deceased and various recoveries
were made from the spot. The inquest report Ex.P10/3 was also
prepared and the statements of the various witnesses were recorded.
Even, the broken pieces of “Ghotna” were also lifted from the spot
and taken into possession by drawing a recovery memo. The rough
site plan Ex.PQ of the place of the occurrence with correct marginal
notes were prepared. Even during the course of investigation, Satinder
Singh produced Amrik Singh, appellant No.1 before Tejinder Singh
SI and a car alongwith RC were taken into possession vide recovery
memo Ex.PL and Amrik Singh was formally arrested in the present
case. Even, in pursuance of disclosure statement suffered by Amrik
Singh, one foot mat, one shirt, one pant and broken “Ghotna”, which
was blood stained were recovered by the police. After the completion
of investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was
presented against Amrik Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Darshan Kaur.
The appellants No. 2 and 3 were found to be innocent during the
investigation. During the course of trial, the statements of Karambir
Singh, Deepak Kumar and Dr. D.S. Bhullar were recorded by the
police and appellants No. 2 and 3 were also summoned as additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 6 666
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a prima
facie case for commission of the offence punishable under Sections
302, 120-B, 420 and 467 IPC was made out against the
appellants/accused, and they were charge sheeted for the same. The
charge was read over to the appellants, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10
witnesses and certain documents were also exhibited before the trial
Court. The prosecution examined Deepak Kumar as PW1, who was
running a shop near the place of the occurrence. As per him, at 02.15
p.m. on 02.04.2002, while he was standing outside his shop, Amrik
Singh, appellant No.1 told him that his mother Amritpal Kaur
received injuries. They went at the spot and he found that the injuries
had been caused on the head of Amritpal Kaur and the blood was
oozing. The blood stains were also found on the clothes of Amrik
Singh and at about 08.30/9.00 p.m. on 02.04.2002, he came to know
that Amritpal Kaur had been murdered. There was some minor
altercation between Amritpal Kaur and Amrik Singh, appellant No.1.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that Amritpal Kaur had adopted
Amrik Singh accused on 25.06.2002 vide a registered adoption deed
and she treated Amrik Singh appellant No. 1 as her own son. Even he
used to look-after and serve Amritpal Kaur. The prosecution further
examined PW2 Karambir Singh, who also reached the house of
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 7 777
Amritpal Kaur at 02.00 p.m. on 02.04.2002 and found that the door of
the house were lying open. He went upstairs on the first floor, where
Amritpal Kaur was residing and found that Amritpal Kaur (since
deceased) and Amrik Singh appellant No. 1 were quarreling with each
other. In his presence, appellant No.1 gave 2/3 “Ghotna” blows on
the head of Amritpal Kaur. He asked him as to what he was doing and
when he rushed towards Karambir Singh, he ran out of the place due
to fear and reached his house. After joining his parents, he informed
the police. He further stated that the appellant No.1 had conspired
with his parents, appellants No. 2 and 3 and other persons and had
killed Amritpal Kaur. They were pressurizing Amritpal Kaur to sell
her shop within 06 months prior to the occurrence. In his
cross-examination, he also admitted that about 02 years ago, from
02.04.2002, they had come to know that Amripal Kaur had adopted
Amrik Singh accused and used to treat him as her son.
6. Even PW3 Dr. D.S. Bhullar, proved on record the
injuries on the dead body and original postmortem report as Ex.PA,
which was signed by him. He observed the following injuries on the
person of Amritpal Kaur (since deceased):-
“1. Black left eye.
2. Lacerated wound 7 x 1.5 cm. bone deep on right side
of scalp 3 cms above pinna of right ear.
3. Lacerated wound 4 x 1 m. bone deep on right side of
scalp on the frontal region.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 8 888
4. Lacerated wound 6 x 1 cm. bone deep on right side of
scalp on the frontal region running obliquely, 2.5 cm.
behind injury No.3.
5. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm. bone deep on left side of
scalp on the parietal region, 3 cm. above the pinna of left
ear.
On dissection brain underneath injuries 2 to 5 was
injured with extradural, subdural and intra-cerebral
haemorrhage present uriderneath.
6. Incised wound 5 cm. x 0.5-1 cm. present on palm of
the right hand.
7. Contusion 2 x 1 cm. with three small contusions each
1 x 0.5 cm. present on medial side of ankle joint of the
left foot.
Stomach and intestines were healthy and contained semi-
digested food contents and liquid chyme. Other
abdominal viscera were pale”.
7. As per PW3 Dr. D.S. Bhullar, cause of death in the
present case was hemorrhage and shock due to the injuries prescribed,
which were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. Still further, the prosecution
examined PW4 Subhash Sharma, who had prepared the photographs
Ex.P1 to P4 and had exhibited the negatives Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 which
were taken into police possession vide Ex.PB.
8. PW5 Indresh Khanna, had prepared the site plan Ex.PC
at the instance of Ghamdoor Singh. Similarly, the testimony of PW6
HC Harmesh Singh, PW7 ASI Sukhpal Singh and MHC Sukhpal
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 9 999
Singh (as mentioned as PW7) were formal in nature.
9. The prosecution further examined Ajaib Singh, who
supported the case of the prosecution and also proved the FIR
Ex.PF/2. SI Tejinder Singh was examined as PW9, who proved the
formal investigation conducted by him in the present case. Even, the
prosecution examined ASI Gurdev Singh as PW10, who remained
associated with PW9 SI Tejinder Singh during the process of
investigation. Still further, the statement of PW11, Constable Lali
Singh was formal in nature and he tendered his affidavit Ex.PB on
record. After closer of the prosecution evidence, the entire evidence
was put to the accused in the present case in the shape of statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant No.1 stated that he was
adopted as son of Amritpal Kaur, since deceased on 25.06.2000 vide
registered adoption deed No. 25, which was registered in the Sub-
Tehsil Lehra and, thereafter, he remained in her house as her son and
she also treated him as her son. The complainant party never visited
Amritpal Kaur and she also never visited the complainant party. On
02.04.2002, he had gone to the market and on his return, he saw that
Amritpal Kaur was lying in an injured condition and he shifted her to
the hospital. She succumbed to the injuries suffered by her at the
hands of some unknown persons. Even, the complainant party had
filed a civil suit against him after the death of Amritpal Kaur,
however, no stay was granted in favour of the complainant party.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1110000
Similarly, the appellants No. 2 and 3 had taken a stand that Amritpal
Kaur (since deceased) had adopted her son Amrik Singh vide a
registered adoption deed and, thereafter, Amrik Singh remained with
Amritpal Kaur as her son. In fact, they had been falsely implicated in
the case, being the natural father/mother of Amrik Singh, main
accused.
10. The appellants also tendered in defence Ex.DX , a copy
of the judgment dated 01.05.2003 passed in appeal titled as ““““AAAAmmmmrrrriiiikkkk
SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh VVVVssss.... AAAAjjjjaaaaiiiibbbb SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh aaaannnndddd ooootttthhhheeeerrrrssss””””....
11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants has vehemently argued that admittedly, the occurrence had
taken place at about 01.00 p.m. on 02.04.2002 and the occurrence had
allegedly been witnessed by PW2 Karambir Singh, nephew of
Amritpal Kaur, since deceased. Apart from that, PW1 Deepak Kumar
was also present at the time of suffering of the injuries by Amritpal
Kaur. However, the FIR in the present case was recorded at 07.45
p.m. on 02.04.2002 and the special report was received at 12.45 a.m.
on 03.04.2002. Consequently, it is apparent that the appellants have
been falsely implicated in the present case due to a property dispute,
after due consultations and confabulations. Learned counsel for the
appellants has extensively referred to the testimonies of PW1 Deepak
Kumar and PW2 Karambir Singh and submitted that the presence of
both the witnesses at the place of the occurrence was doubtful. In
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1111111
fact, Deepak Kumar was running a barber shop and admittedly 02
nd
April 2002 was Tuesday and on Tuesday the barbers keep their shops
closed as per convention. Still further, even PW2 Karambir Singh was
introduced as an eye witness in the present case. Admittedly, he was a
young boy aged about 22 years and while injuries were being
allegedly caused by appellant No.1, he ran away due to fear and,
admittedly, did not inform his parents or any other person till 06.30
p.m. Still further, he entered the house of the deceased, however,
neither he tried to catch hold of Amrik Singh nor tried to shut the door
nor bolted the same from outside. Even, he did not apply bandage on
the injuries suffered by his Masi (aunt) nor served her water and did
not make any effort to shift her to the hospital. Still further, PW8
Ajaib Singh was also introduced as a witness due to ongoing civil
dispute between the parties as the appellant No.1 as well as the
complainant side were claiming the property of Amritpal Kaur, who
was a widow and had left behind no issue. Learned senior counsel
further argued that even the Investigating Officer in the present case
was admittedly tainted and the appellants had been falsely implicated
at the instance of the complainant party. It was also an admitted fact
that Amrik Singh was treated by Amritpal Kaur as her own son and
she had admittedly executed an adoption deed in favour of appellant
No.1. Even, the material prosecution witnesses had admitted the
factum of adoption and there was no question of forgery of adoption
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1112222
deed Ex.PS by the appellants and they have been wrongly convicted
for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467 IPC. There was
no evidence to show that the appellants had cheated any person and
no evidence has been lead with regard to the forgery of the adoption
deed. Thus, the appellants are liable to be acquitted by this Court.
12. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by the
learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted
that the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected on the ground of
minor inconsistencies appearing in the testimonies of various
prosecution witnesses. In fact, the statements of the witnesses are
formally recorded after several months and such contradictions are
bound to creep in the testimonies of truthful witnesses. In the present
case, the witnesses of the prosecution have been examined
extensively and the defence could not elicit anything, which could
shatter their testimonies in any manner. In fact, Karambir Singh PW2
was an young witness, who was present at the place of occurrence and
had duly identified Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh had given “Ghotna”
blows on the head of Amritpal Kaur and when he was spotted by him,
Amrik Singh ran towards him with a “Ghotna”. Even immediately
after the occurrence, Amritpal Kaur was shifted to the hospital and the
said witness had informed other family members as well as the
relatives. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court had
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1113333
recorded detailed findings and the impugned judgment is liable to be
upheld by this Court.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
14. The first argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants is with regard to the delay in reporting the matter to the
police and the possibility of false implication by the complainant side.
In fact, the occurrence had taken place at about 01/02.00 p.m. on
02.04.2002 and the statement of Ajaib Singh PW8/complainant was
recorded at about 07.30 p.m. In fact, at about 01.00 p.m. on
02.04.2002, Amritpal Kaur, since deceased, had made a telephonic
call to her brother Ajaib Singh and informed him that Amrik Singh
had beaten her up. He alongwith his other brothers came to Patiala on
a car and on the way, he came to know that his sister has already been
shifted to Rajendera Hospital, Patiala and found his sister dead there.
Immediately thereafter, the police was informed and the statement of
the complainant was recorded at about 07.30 p.m. Thus, it can never
be stated that there was any unreasonable delay in the recording of the
FIR and this minor delay in registration of the FIR stood properly
explained by the prosecution.
15. Still further, the learned senior counsel has assailed the
testimonies of PW1 Deepak Kumar, PW2 Karambir Singh and PW8
Ajaib Singh by submitting that their presence at the place of
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1114444
occurrence was doubtful and they were introduced by the prosecution
at a later stage.
16. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has
relied upon the testimonies of 11 witnesses. The prosecution
examined Deepak Kumar, whose shop was situated across the road of
the house of Amritpal Kaur, since deceased, and was an independent
witness. He had no concern with the civil dispute, which was pending
between the parties and had no reason to depose falsely against the
appellants. He was called by Amrik Singh, appellant No.1 and with
his help, Amritpal Kaur was shifted to the hospital. Even, he found
that Amritpal Kaur had suffered injuries on her head and blood was
oozing. He also stated that there was altercation between Amritpal
Kaur (since deceased) and appellant No.1, on account of purchase of
a car and a scooter and she had suffered injuries in the altercation.
Similarly, PW2 Karambir Singh stated that at about 01.30 p.m., he
received a phone call from Ajaib Singh and he went at the place of
Amritpal Kaur (his massi) aunt. He saw that Amritpal Kaur and
appellant No. 1 were quarreling with each other and in his presence,
the appellant No. 1 gave “Ghotna” blows on the head of Amritpal
Kaur. When he asked appellant No. 1 as to what he was doing, he
came towards him with a “Ghotna” and he ran away out of fear. He
was waiting for his parents to reach home and immediately thereafter
whole incident was narrated to them and the matter was reported to
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1115555
the police without any delay. Apart from that it is also an admitted
fact that immediately after the occurrence, Amritpal Kaur was shifted
to the hospital and thereafter the FIR was got registered. The
testimonies of PW1 Deepak Kumar and PW2 Karambir Singh are
duly supported by PW8 Ajaib Singh. He stated that on 01.04.2002,
i.e., one day prior to the occurrence, his sister Amritpal Kaur had
gone to Patra and she had disclosed that appellant No.1 was raising a
dispute and wanted to sell the shops of Amritpal Kaur. Still further, at
about 01.00 p.m. on 02.04.2002, he received a telephonic call from
Amritpal Kaur, since deceased, who said that Amrik Singh had beaten
her up (Marya) and, thereafter, the connection was disconnected. He
went to his brother Mewa Singh and Gamdoor Singh and immediately
went to Patiala on a car. On the way, Kashmir Singh also joined them
and when they came to Patiala near Samana Octroi Post Patiala,
Rambir Singh son of Mewa Singh met them on the way and informed
that Amritpal Kaur was murdered by Amrik Singh with a “Ghotna”
blow and had been shifted to the hospital. Still further, we have
carefully examined the testimonies of PW1 Deepak Kumar, PW2
Karambir Singh and PW8 Ajaib Singh and even after lengthy
cross-examination, the defence could not cause any dent in their
testimonies.
17. Still further, the statements of PW1 Deepak Kumar, PW2
Karambir Singh and PW8 Ajaib Singh have been duly supported by
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1116666
the testimony of PW3 Dr. D.S. Bhullar, who had conducted the
postmortem examination on the dead body of Amritpal Kaur on
03.04.2002. As per him, the following injuries were suffered by the
deceased:-
“1. Black left eye.
2. Lacerated wound 7 x 1.5 cm. bone deep on right side
of scalp 3 cms above pinna of right ear.
3. Lacerated wound 4 x 1 m. bone deep on right side of
scalp on the frontal region.
4. Lacerated wound 6 x 1 cm. bone deep on right side of
scalp on the frontal region running obliquely, 2.5 cm.
behind injury No.3.
5. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm. bone deep on left side of
scalp on the parietal region, 3 cm. above the pinna of left
ear.
On dissection brain underneath injuries 2 to 5 was
injured with extradural, subdural and intra-cerebral
haemorrhage present uriderneath.
6. Incised wound 5 cm. x 0.5-1 cm. present on palm of
the right hand.
7. Contusion 2 x 1 cm. with three small contusions each
1 x 0.5 cm. present on medial side of ankle joint of the
left foot.
Stomach and intestines were healthy and contained semi-
digested food contents and liquid chyme. Other
abdominal viscera were pale”.
18. As per him, the cause of death in the present case was
hemorrhage and shock due to the injuries described, which were
antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1117777
ordinary course of nature. He proved on record the copy of the
original postmortem report as Ex.P10. From the postmortem report, it
is apparent that the majority of injuries suffered by Amritpal Kaur
could be caused with a “Ghotna” , which was recovered at the
instance of appellant No.1.
19. Still further, the prosecution has relied upon the
testimony of Tejinder Singh SI, who had conducted the investigation
in the present case. He had lifted the blood stained earth from the spot
and had taken the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH.
Apart from that, the broken pieces of “Ghotna” were also lifted from
the spot and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. He also
prepared rough site plan Ex.PQ of the place of the occurrence and
arrested Amrik Singh, appellant No. 1 on 03.04.2002. During police
custody, Amrik Singh suffered a disclosure statement and at the
instance of Amrik Singh, appellant No.1, one foot-mat, one shirt, one
pant and broken “Ghotna” were recovered and all the four articles
were found to be blood stained. His testimony has been duly
corroborated by the statement of PW10 ASI Gurdev Singh, who
remained associated with him during the course of investigation.
Thus, there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellant No.1
had caused serious injuries on the person of Amritpal Kaur and she
had succumbed to the injuries suffered in the incident.
20. In the present case, the appellants have also been
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1118888
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467 IPC.
The said charge was framed against the appellants by alleging that on
or before 25.06.2000, the appellants had prepared a false adoption
deed, which was allegedly executed by Amritpal Kaur in favour of
Amrik Singh, appellant No.1 just to cheat and grab the property of
Amritpal Kaur (since deceased). Still further, the appellants had
forged the adoption deed in favour of appellant No.1, purporting to be
a valuable security by showing the age of Amrik Singh as 15 years,
even though he was above the age of 15 years at that time. In fact,
Section 471 of IPC provides for the punishment for using a forged
document as genuine and valid document. As per the definition
provided under Section 463 IPC, a person can be held guilty for
committing forgery, when he makes any false document with an
intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any other
person or to support any claim or tittle or to cause any person to part
with property or with an intention to commit fraud. Section 464 of
IPC provides for punishment for the making of a false document. A
person is said to make a false document, who dishonestly or
fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or a part of
document with the intention of causing it to be believe that such
document was made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it
was not made, signed, sealed or executed. Still further, a person is
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1 1119999
also said to make a false document, who unlawfully, dishonestly and
fraudulently alters a document after it has been made, executed or
signed either by himself or any other person.
21. In the present case, in the considered opinion of the
Court, the appellants have been wrongly convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 420/467 of IPC. In fact, the appellants
were charge sheeted under Sections 420/467 of IPC on the ground
that they had prepared a false adoption deed of Amritpal Kaur (since
deceased) in favour of appellant No.1 by illegal means with a view to
grab the property of Amritpal Kaur (since deceased). It was alleged
that the adoption deed was forged by showing the age of appellant
No.1 as 15 years, even though he was above the age of 15 years at the
time of registration of the adoption deed. In fact, at this stage, it
would be appropriate to refer to the testimonies of PW1 Deepak
Kumar, PW2 Karambir Singh and PW8 Ajaib Singh, in this regard.
PW1 Deepak Kumar clearly admitted in his statement that it was
known to him that Amritpal Kaur had adopted appellant No.1 on
25.06.2002 vide registered adoption deed. Even, Amritpal Kaur was
treating the appellant No.1 as her son and he was living with her in
the same house. The appellant No.1 used to lookafter and serve
Amritpal Kaur. When he purchased a car, Amritpal Kaur (since
deceased) visited the market and offered sweets to the shop keepers
including him. Similarly, PW2 Karambir Singh also admitted in his
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 2 2220000
cross-examination that two years prior to the date of occurrence, he
came to know that Amritpal Kaur (since deceased) had adopted
Amrik Singh, appellant No.1 as her son and this fact was told to them
by Amritpal Kaur herself.
22. Still further, PW8 Ajaib Singh also admitted that
Amritpal Kaur (since deceased) had told him that in case Amrik
Singh did not obey her, she would cancel adoption deed. He also
admitted that the appellant No.1 was staying with Amritpal Kaur,
since deceased, in the same house. He admitted that the photographs
Mark DA and DB on the registered adoption deed executed by
Amritpal Kaur, since deceased. He admitted in his statement Ex.PF,
that Amritpal Kaur had told him that in case Amrik Singh did not
obey her, she would get the adoption deed canceled. Thus, there was
sufficient evidence to show that the adoption deed Ex.PS dated
22.06.2000 was executed by Amritpal Kaur in favour of Amrik Singh,
appellant No.1. Moreover, the adoption deed Ex.PS was admittedly
executed and registered on 22.06.2000 and till the date of occurrence,
i.e., 20.04.2002, the said adoption deed had not been set aside by any
competent Court of law. Apart from that, simply because the age of
Amrik Singh was mentioned less in the adoption deed, it cannot be
stated that it was a forged deed/document. Thus, the appellants No. 1
to 3 are liable to be acquitted of the charge under Sections 420 and
467 of IPC in the instant case.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 2 2221111
23. Now adverting to the roles of appellants No. 2 and 3, it is
apparent that in the statement Ex.PF, Gurcharan Singh and Darshan
Kaur, appellants No. 2 and 3 were not named as accused in the
present case. Even, during the course of investigation, the appellants
No. 2 and 3 were found to be innocent and were later arrayed as
accused in the instant case by invoking the provisions of Section 319
Cr.P.C. Even, while convicting the appellants No. 2 and 3, the trial
Court observed that the appellants No. 2 and 3 had also hatched a
criminal conspiracy with appellant No.1. Even, the inference
regarding hatching of conspiracy has been drawn on the basis of a
adoption deed Ex.PS, which was executed by Amritpal Kaur in favour
of Amrik Singh, appellant No.1. However, from the above referred
discussion, it is apparent that the most of the prosecution witnesses
had admitted the factum of executing of the said adoption deed by
Amritpal Kaur. In fact, it is never easy to prove the ingredients of
“criminal conspiracy”. It is matter of common knowledge that
conspirators invariably plan and act in secret over a period of time. It
is also not necessary that each one of them must have actively
participated in the commission of the crime or must remained
involved from beginning till end. The conspiracy arises and the
offence is committed as soon as the crime is executed and it continues
to be committed so long as the continuation persists. However, Court
has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to believe the
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 2 2222222
existence of conspiracy and an inference has to be drawn from the
facts and circumstances of each individual case. In the present case
also, even though, the witnesses of the prosecution have levelled
allegations with regard to hatching of conspiracy by appellants No. 2
and 3 with appellant No. 1, however, no substantial evidence could be
led by them to prove the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. Even, the
trial Court has drawn an inference with regard to hatching of
conspiracy by all the appellants on the ground of execution of a
adoption deed dated 22.06.2000 (Ex.PS) which was executed two
years prior to the occurrence. It appears that the trial Court has
committed the grave error while drawing an inference from the
registration/execution of adoption deed dated 22.06.2000 (Ex.PS) and
the findings are held to be erroneous.
24. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court has
no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charge against appellants No. 2 and 3 and both of them are ordered to
be acquitted of the charge. Still further, the prosecution has also failed
to prove the charge under Sections 420, 467 and 120-B of IPC against
the appellant No.1 and he is also acquitted of the said charge.
However, the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 302
IPC against appellant No. 1 beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
and the impugned judgment is liable to be upheld to that extent.
Accordingly, the appellant No.1 is ordered to be convicted for
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----444488887777----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 2 2223333
commission of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and is ordered to
be sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
as ordered by the trial Court and in default of payment of fine, he is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year,
as ordered by the trial Court.
25. The appellant No.1 is directed to surrender within 15
days from today, failing which, the CJM concerned shall issue non
bailable warrants against the present appellant No.1/accused and shall
commit him to custody to serve the remaining sentence of
imprisonment.
26. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
27. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the
rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.
28. Records of the Court below be sent back.
((((
NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT))))
JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE
((((
SSSSUUUUKKKKHHHHVVVVIIIINNNNDDDDEEEERRRR KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR ))))
14.10.2025 J JJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE
amit rana
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....