CIVIL APPEAL None on 17 July 2001

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated27.01.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Amritsar,whereby it convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section302 read with Section 365 IPC and sentenced him to undergo lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishableunder Section 302 IPC. In default of payment, the appellant was directed tofurther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Theappellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periodof five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directedto further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

Sahil aged about 11½ years is the deceased. The prosecutioncase was set in motion on the basis of statement (Ex.PL) of Suresh son oflate Shri Janak Raj, father of the deceased made to Inspector PrabhdevSingh, SHO P.S.Raja Sansi, Amritsar on 17.7.2001 at about 9.30 PM. It hasbeen stated that he is working as Fire Foreman at Airport Raja Sansi and hastwo sons and two daughters. Sahil, aged about 11½ years, is younger to histwo daughters and a student of 6[th] Class in Cambridge School, MajithaRoad, Amritsar. Due to vacations in School, Sahil remains at home. It wasfurther stated that he went to his duty as usual from home and at about 5.00PM, when he returned to home, his son Sahil was not at home. He came toknow that he had gone for changing tube of his cycle towards Airport Gatebut has not returned home till now. Thereafter, when he enquired about hisson, he came to know that two boys namely Harinder Singh @ Dainy son ofBaldev Singh and Jinderpal Singh son of Tarlok Chand have coaxed his sonSahil. He has been searching his son, but has not met till now. He believedthat his son has been coaxed by these two boys.

The dead body of Sahil was recovered on 18.7.2001 at 7.30AM. During the course of inquest proceedings, Pardeep Kumar andParveen Kumar, uncles of the deceased, identified the dead body. TheInvestigating Officer has not seen any apparent injury on the dead body ofthe deceased, but it was stated that the cause of death was by strangulationby pressing neck with rope like thing. One cycle of children make Ranger,one pair of Kainchi Chappal (‘V’ shape) and one hoe were recovered nearthe dead body.

The post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was carriedout by PW-7 Dr. Amarjit Singh on 18.7.2001 at 9.30 AM. He has foundbluish coloured bruise present on inner aspect of upper and lower lip in itsmiddle 1/3[rd] opposite incisor teeth; ligature mark 10 cm long and 2 x 1.5 cmwide reddish brown colour abraded ligature mark on front and right side ofneck at the level of thyroid cartilage. Ligature mark was extending from leftside of thyroid cartilage to right side of neck 5.5 cm below angle of lowerjaw and was horizontally placed. On dissection of neck, sub cutaniousconnective tissue under the ligature mark was found ecchymosed; two linearshape reddish brown coloured abrasions having size 2.8 x 0.5 cm and 0.4 x0.3 cm placed 0.3 cm on front of neck at the level of thyroid cartilage, 2 cmbelow ligature mark. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem inorigin and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation andsmothering, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course ofnature. In his cross-examination, it was admitted that the rigor mortis setsin within 12 hours of the death and maintains itself for next 12 hours.Thereafter, it starts wearing off. In response to a specific question that thedeath had taken place more than 24 hours prior to 18.7.2001 at 9.30 AM,when the post-mortem was conducted, he stated that it is not correct. It wasstated that the duration between death and post-mortem is less than 24hours.

After completion of investigation, five accused namelyHarinder Singh @ Daini, Jinder Pal, Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Baldev Raj andTarlok Chand were made to stand trial on the basis of evidence of last seen,extra judicial confession, foot moulds of the accused and the disclosurestatements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The evidence of last seen was provided by PW-6 ParveenKumar and PW-12 Rajesh Kumar. PW-9 Tejpal Singh was examined toprove the extra judicial confession made by Harjinderpal, Daini and Ranaon 19.7.2001 at about 7.00 AM. The learned trial Court did not believe theevidence of last seen by PW-6 Parveen Kumar and PW-12 Rajesh Kumarand also disbelieved the extra judicial confession recorded by PW-9 TejpalSingh, as he was a resident of the same colony, where the father of thedeceased residing and in fact, his colleague. On the basis of such evidence,the learned trial Court acquitted the four accused. However, the appellantwas convicted by the learned trial Court relying upon foot print (mould) andrecovery of hanker-chief and socks on the disclosure statement of theappellant. PW-14 ASI Iqbal Singh has lifted moulds i.e. one of right footand two of left foot, from the place where the dead body of the deceasedwas recovered, converted the same into parcels and taken into possessionvide memo Ex.PQ. On 19.7.2001, the samples were entrusted to ASIPalwinder Singh for depositing the same in Forensic Science Laboratory,Chandigarh. Accused Ranjit Singh @ Rana was arrested by InspectorPrabhdev Singh on 19.7.2001 and were produced before the Tehsildar,Ajnala on 21.7.2001, where his sample mould of foot were taken. On thebasis of report Ex.PX, the mould of left naked foot ‘C’ lifted from the placeof occurrence was found to tally with the sample mould print Ex.P1 of theappellant. The learned trial Court did not believe the argument raised by thelearned counsel for the appellant that the mould of left foot was taken afterhis arrest.

Arguments

The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration thedisclosure statement Ex.PT made by the appellant on 21.7.2001. On thebasis of such statement, hanker-chief Ex.P4 and socks Ex.P5 were recovered and seized vide memo Ex.P2. Ex.PY is the site plan from wherethe dead body was recovered, whereas Ex.P2/2 is the site plan from wherethe disclosed articles were recovered. From the said articles, it was foundthat possibility of the ligature strangulation as a result of socks could not beruled out. Thus, both the circumstances i.e. left foot print lifted from theplace of occurrence and recovery of hanker-chief and socks, were foundsufficient to prove the allegations against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued thatthe prosecution has miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances,so as to lead to no other inference except that the appellant was the personresponsible for causing death of deceased Sahil. Apart from thecontradictions in the statements of PW-8 Suresh, father of the deceased,PW-6 Parveen Kumar and PW-12 Rajesh Kumar in respect of the persons,who accompanied the deceased, it is argued that the report of the ForensicScience Laboratory only compare the left naked foot on crime mould C-1from the left naked foot of suspect Ranjit Singh, whereas the left and rightnaked feet on crime moulds C-2 and C-3 from left and right naked feet ontest moulds stated to be of suspects, it was reported that it has not beenpossible to link them together. It is contended that the conviction on thesole evidence of left naked foot tallying with sample foot would not besufficient for the lack of corroboration, when the evidence of such foot printis said to be of a weak nature. It is contended that if left foot was foundcomparable, then by necessary implication, the right foot should also match.It is contended that the report is categorical that it is not possible to link thecrime moulds with the sample moulds, therefore, the conviction of theappellant on the basis of comparison of left naked foot itself without anycorroboration, is not sustainable. It is argued that socks and hanker-chief said to be recovered on the disclosure statement of the appellant are notsufficient to link the use of such articles in the commission of crime. Thereis no mark on such hanker-chief and socks of having been used in the crime.Such articles are commonly available.

The prosecution has failed to explain that socks and hanker-chief are that of the accused or that of the deceased. The deceased waswearing Kainchi chappal (V-shape), which cannot be worn with socks andthat socks recovered is not said to be of the appellant. Though theprosecution has tried to lead evidence that in fact there was demand ofransom of Rs.6 lac, which is sought to be proved by documents Exs.PB, PCand PE, but the said documents shows that telephone calls have been madeto telephone No.33756 at 7.31 PM and 7.15 PM on 17.7.2001. It is notproved by the prosecution that the calls were made by the appellant. Thecalls were made from Atwal STD/PCO of Shri B.S.Atwal, but no attendantof PCO has been examined to the fact that the calls were made using thesaid PCO by the appellant. The factum of ransom calls is not disclosed inthe first statement. The explanation that the father was searching for thechild and the calls were received by Jalandhar Singh remainsunsubstantiated, as Jalandhar Singh has not been examined as a witness.Therefore, there is no motive to link the appellant with the crime. Therecovery of hanker-chief and socks is not of such nature, which is linkedwith the commission of crime alone, whereas sample foot print of one footis not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances, which may lead to afinding that the crime was committed by the appellant and none else.

In view of the above, we find that the conviction of theappellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 365 IPC is

not made out, as the circumstances do not conclusively lead to thecommission of crime by the appellant.

Therefore, we acquit appellant Ranjit Singh @ Rana of thecharges framed against him by granting him benefit of doubt. He shall beset at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

May 5, 2010 Vimal

(JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE