Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
INDU ANAND - Appellant
Vs.
STATE - Respondent
CRA No. 215 of 1996
Decided On : 23-03-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate and Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ashima Mor, Standing Counsel, Mr. Sumeet Goel, Retainer Counsel.
The evidence of an approver, who has been given a pardon by the prosecution in exchange for his testimony, must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused unless it is corroborated by other independent evidence.
Headnote:
The court acquitted the appellants of the charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the charge of attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 IPC. The court held that the evidence of the approver, PW1-Darshan Lal, was unreliable and could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case and that the appellants had not been given a fair trial.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of J.S. Anand, a Border Security Force (BSF) officer, whose body was found in Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh on July 13, 1983. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, namely Indu Anand (wife of the deceased), Sumanjit Anand (son of the deceased), and Sandeep Singh (nephew of the deceased), along with the approver, Darshan Lal, had caused the death of J.S. Anand by pushing his body into the lake. The prosecution relied on the confession statement of the approver, PW1-Darshan Lal, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the approver, PW1-Darshan Lal, was unreliable and could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court noted that the approver had made contradictory statements to the police and to the court, and that he had been given a pardon by the prosecution in exchange for his testimony. The court also found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The court noted that the postmortem report did not show any injuries on the body of the deceased that could have been caused by the appellants, and that the cause of death was drowning.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the approver, PW1-Darshan Lal, was reliable and could be relied upon to establish the guilt of the appellants. 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the approver, PW1-Darshan Lal, was unreliable and could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court noted that the approver had made contradictory statements to the police and to the court, and that he had been given a pardon by the prosecution in exchange for his testimony. The court also found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The court noted that the postmortem report did not show any injuries on the body of the deceased that could have been caused by the appellants, and that the cause of death was drowning.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the charge of attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 IPC.
A.B. Chaudhari, J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.02.1996, passed by Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in Sessions Case No.3 of 06.02.1985 by which appellant No.1-Indu Anand was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with Section 34 IPC, while appellants No.2 and 3, namely Sumanjit Anand and Sandeep Singh were convicted for offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years each and fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- each; in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, the present appeal was filed by the three appellants.
Facts
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution (CBI) is that in the morning of 13.07.1983 at about 7:30 AM, police constables, namely Sant Singh, Prem Singh and Mohinder Singh, while patrolling on Sukhna lake, opposite Light Point No.49, noticed the dead body of J.S. Anand, the husband of appellant No.1-Indu Anand. J.S. Anand was an I.P.S. officer of Punjab Cadre, on deputation with Border Security Force posted as D.I.G. at Jodhpur. The dead body was identified by Sumanjit Anand and Sandeep Singh (Nephew), appellants No.2 and 3, respectively (both aged about 16-17 years), who had gone there in the company of PW27-Jasbir Singh Tiwana, the immediate neighbour of appellant No.1. The first information about discovery of dead body was reported to the police station and PW41-Devinder Singh, Inspector/SHO recorded DDR No.3 (Exhibit P/BB(R) and along with other police officials, he went to the spot. The personal search of the dead body was undertaken and some articles were recovered. The inquest panchnama was conducted and photographs of the dead body etc. were taken. The dead body was sent to the General Hospital for postmortem. A Board of two Doctors was constituted for conducting the postmortem on same day, i.e. 13.07.1983 at about 1:00 PM. Dr. Kuldip Singh and Dr. J.K. Kalra conducted the postmortem and issued a report Exhibit PT. According to them, the death was due to asphyxia by drowning, but the opinion regarding suicide due to drug/poisoning was reserved awaiting viscera report.
3. On 14.07.1983, PW41-Devinder Singh, Inspector took sample of water of the lake from where the dead body was recovered. On 14.07.1983, Col. S.S. Anand, brother of the deceased sought second postmortem examination and the same was conducted on 14.07.1983 at about 3:00 PM by the Board of Doctors consisting Dr. Inderjit Dewan, Dr. B.N. Datta and Dr. Rajinder Kalra. They prepared report Exhibit PQ after considering the report Exhibit PO of the chemical examiner. In their opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia and also that drowning could be ruled out. It was also opined that, though, the chemical examiner had detected Organophosphorus compound and alcohol, but the Board did not agree with him. They observed that postmortem findings were not consistent with those seen in the cases of Organophosphorus poisoning. Finally they came to the conclusion that it was not a case of drowning. PW41-Devinder Singh then registered FIR No.362 dated 22.07.1983 and commenced investigation. He recorded the statements of large number of persons, whom he thought, would throw light. While the Chandigarh police continued to investigate, by letter dated 20.07.1983 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the same was entrusted to CBI. Sh. O.P. Chhatwal was entrusted the investigation by CBI who registered CBI case No.4/83. On 27.07.1983, O.P. Chhatwal seized certain articles from appellant No.1-Indu Anand and also from Lt. Col. S.C.S. Guleri. CBI made a request to the Board of Doctors consisting of Professor Hareesh Chandra, Dr. Jagdish Chandra and Dr. Valliaeth seeking their opinion. The Board was constituted on 11.08.1983 and it released the opinion Exhibit PLL dated 17.09.1983. They opined that the death was due to asphyxia by drowning due to the presence of miliary tuberculosis
