Smt. Jaswinder
Kaur & Anr Vs. State of Punjab [1995] INSC 335 (26 July 1995)
Nanavati
G.T. (J) Nanavati G.T. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J) Nanavati, J.
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2327 JT 1995 (5) 532 1995 SCALE (4)546
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
This
appeal is filed under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special
Courts) Act, 1984 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Special Court, Hoshiarpur, in Case FIR No.103 of 1984.
Appellant
No.1 Smt. Jaswinder Kaur is the wife of appellant No.2 Shri Jaswinder Singh.
Appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 302 and appellant No.1 under
Section 302/34 IPC, for causing death of Surjit Singh, brother of appellant
No.2 The prosecution case was that Surjit Singh (deceased) Jaswinder Singh
(accused) and Kewal Singh were living together along with their parents. Surjit
Singh alone used to manage the family affairs. This was not liked by Jaswinder
Singh and therefore there used to be quarrels between them. The last quarrel
was on 24.5.84. On 25.5.84 Surjit Singh after taking food at about 12.00 noon slept on a cot in dalan of their house. Since some
time prior to 2.30 P.M. Raj Rani, wife of Surjit Singh and his two sisters Kewal
Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur were sitting together on a cot in the dalan and were
talking with each other. The appellants were sitting on a separate cot and they
were also talking with each other. At about 3.30 P.M. appellant No.1 Jaswinder kaur brought some clothes, gave
them to appellant No.2 and told him as to what he was waiting for. Appellant
No.2 took those clothes and got up from the cot. He then picked up an axe lying
in one corner of the dalan and gave two blows on the neck of Surjit Singh. He
gave one more blow near his right shoulder. On cries being raised by Raj Rani, Kewal
Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur the accused ran away from the place. Raj Rani then
approached Tarsem Singh, a member of the Panchayat and along with him went to Dasuya
Police Station at a distance of 8 K.M. There she lodged the FIR at 3.30 P.M.
Appellant
No.1 was tried for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC
and appellant No.2 under Section 302 IPC. Before the trial court, the
prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of three eye witnesses PW-4 Raj Rani,
PW-5 Kewal Kaur and PW-7 Jaswinder Kaur. The prosecution also relied upon an
extra judicial confession alleged to have been made before PW-6, Sarwan Singh,
a member of the Panchayat who was approached by the appellants for producing
them before police. The prosecution also relied upon recovery of an axe from
appellant No.2. The learned Addl. Judge did not rely upon the alleged extra
judicial confession and the recovery as the evidence in that behalf was not
found satisfactory. The learned Addl.Judge did not believe the two defence
witnesses, DW-1 Mangal Singh, father of the appellant No.2 and DW-2 Jarnail
Singh, brother of appellant No.2, examined to prove that the appellants were in
their field at the relevant time. Relying upon evidence of the eye witnesses
and the medical evidence the learned Addl. Judge convicted both the accused as
stated above.
What
is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned
Addl. Judge ought not to have discarded the evidence of the defence witnesses
as being equally related to appellant No.2 and the deceased they had no reason
to tell what was not true. It was further submitted that their evidence
establishes that both the appellants were not present in the house at the time
of the incident but were in the field belonging to the family. Both the defence
witnesses deposed that at about 2.30 P.M. Raj Rani came to the field and
informed them that Surjit Singh was lying dead in the house. They also stated
that she was having illicit relationship with Kewal Singh, elder brother of the
deceased and appellant No.2; and, as that was not liked by the appellants, she
was on inimical terms with them. They also stated that Kewal Kaur was with them
in the field thereby indicating that she was not present in the house when the
incidence took place. They further stated that PW-7 Jaswinder Kaur was at the
relevant time at her in- law's place and she was sent for because of the death
of Surjit Singh. Both these witnesses took no steps to inform either the
village people or the police. They did not make any complaint to any authority
that the two appellants were falsely involved by the police. Apart from the
fact that the allegation of illicit relationship is totally denied by PW-4 Raj Rani,
PW-5 Kewal Kaur and PW-7 Jaswinder Kaur, it does not appear to be true for the
reason that if it was really so then the parents and other family members would
have also reacted to the same. It is difficult to appreciate that of all the
family members only the appellants objected and for that reason PW-4 Raj Rani
would have gone to the extent of falsely involving them for the murder of her
husband. Surely the two sisters PW-5 Kewal Kaur and PW-7 Jaswinder Kaur would
not have supported her, if the allegation made against her was true and their
brother had not caused the death of Surjit Singh. After carefully considering
the evidence of the defence witnesses, we are of the opinion that they have
deposed falsely in order to save the appellants. DW-1, the father having lost
one son (Surjit Singh) obviously did not want to lose his other son (appellant
No.2) by getting him convicted. So also DW-2 being the brother tried to save
appellant No.2 by deposing like that.
So far
as the three eye witnesses are concerned, we find that their evidence is quite
consistent and acceptable.
Their
presence in the house was natural. PW-4 Raj Rani, immediately after the
incidence, contacted Tarsem Singh, went to the Police Station, and lodged the
First Information Report at Dasuya Police Station within an hour. She had
stated all the material facts in the First Information Report. The conduct of
this witness and promptness with which the FIR was lodged make her evidence
trust-worthy. In our opinion, the learned Addl. Judge has rightly relied upon
her evidence. The evidence of PW-5 Kewal Kaur and PW-7 Jaswinder Kaur does not
suffer from any serious infirmity and no good reason could be urged by the
learned counsel for not relying upon their evidence. Their evidence establishes
beyond any doubt that appellant No.2 Jaswinder Singh had given axe blows to the
deceased and he died as a result thereof. In our opinion, appellant No.2 has
been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his brother Surjit
Singh.
So far
as appellant No.1 Jaswinder Kaur is concerned we find that there is no sufficient
evidence to sustain her conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. What the evidence
of the three eye witnesses establish is that immediately before the incident
she had whispered something in the ears of her husband, appellant No.2, had
given him a bundle of new clothes, and had told him as to what he was looking
for.
From
this evidence it cannot be inferred that she had incited him to commit the
murder of his brother. All the three eye witnesses have stated that she had
given a bundle of new clothes to her husband before telling him as to what he
was waiting for. This would indicate that in all probability she wanted him to
leave the house as she and her husband did not like the importance given to the
deceased in the matter of their house-hold management. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that her conviction under section 302/34 is not at all proper and that
she deserves to be acquitted.
In the
result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant No.2 and the
order of sentence passed against him are confirmed and to that extent the
appeal is dismissed. The conviction of appellant No.1 and the order and
sentence passed against her are set aside and to that extent the appeal is
allowed. As she is on bail her bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.
Back