This post is mainly to clear the name of my father Late S. Balwant Singh Ahluwalia, a simple honest man, who was falsely alleged by Ishatindra Singh to have lied in court. In response to a question, during his cross examination in the court in a case last year, six months before he breathed his last, S. Balwant Singh had testified that Ishatindra Singh had been convicted in a murder case in 1974/75. Asked if he could produce any document to support his claim he had to answer in the negative as the case was more than 40 years old. He obviously did not keep any records. Ishatindra Singh's lawyer had the gumption to state that it was a lie and that Ishatindra Singh was never involved in a trial in which he was accused of murder let alone convicted. S. Balwant Singh was visibly hurt and took this barb to his heart. For a man who had never lied in his life it was an insult he could not take and that perhaps hastened his death.
This is the same Ishatindra Singh who was indicted by The Honourable Justice O'Keefe on October 1, 2007 for lying on oath and presenting false papers to Canadian Authorities to try and immigrate to Canada. Ishatindra Singh was "found to have included fraudulent family composition information in your immigration application." the original judgement said. It was upheld by
Judge O'Keefe.
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/federal/federal-court-of-canada/2007/10/01/singh-v-canada-citizenship-and-immigration-2007-fc-992.shtml
I was determined to clear his name and started looking for any court or Police records to prove that what my father had said was the truth. As luck would have it I found a copy of the very judgement convicting Ishatindra Singh which also had other information like the FIR number and case Number and the date of conviction. I really wished I could have found this while my Dad was alive and who knows, he would have lived longer. As there might not be an occasion for presenting this in the court I am going to append the entire judgement to this post so that its never lost again;
In the
Session court, Ambala
Session Case No. 64 of 1974
F.I.R. No 63 dated
15.2.74 Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
State versus Ishatinder Singh s/o
Balwant Singh
Caste Walia r/o
of Yamuna Nagar,
Employee State bank of Patiala,
Aged 17 years.
Offence under Section 364/302/ 34 IPC
P.S. Yamuna Nagar
JUDGEMENT
1. Ishatinder
Singh Aged 18 years (by appearance 19/20 years)and Pardeep Kumar aged 17 years
( by appearance above 18 years0 , both residents of Yamunanagar, have been
committed to this court by G.N. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Jagadhari by his order dated 4.9. 74 to stand trial under sections 364,
302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged that Ishatinder Singh and
Pardeep Kumar on 15.2. 1974 kidnapped Sarabjit Singh s/o S. Amar Singh from
Mukand Lal national College, Yamunanagar, with a view to demanding ransom and
to murder him. Subsequently on the same day within the revenue limits of village
Gulabgarh, Police Station, Chhachhrauli, they, in furtherance of their common
intention had committed the murder of Sarabjit Singh by intentionally causing
his death. Both the accused further charged under section 507 and 386 I.P.C. that
on 15.2.1974 at Yamnanagar they had committed criminal intimidation by sending
an anonymous communication to Shri. Amar Singh to cause the death of his son Sarabjit
Singh in case a ransom of Rs.2 lacs is not paid and that they had committed
extortion by demanding the said ransom of 2 lacs from S. Amar Singh, Ishatinder
Singh, accused has also been separately charged under section 27 of the Indian
Arms Ac, on the assertion that on 15.2.1974 at Yamunanagar he had in his
possession a kirpan, which he had used for unlawful purpose i.e. for committing
the murder of Sarabjit Singh.
2. The
charges were read and explained to the accused. They understood the same. They,
however, did not plead guilty. They have claimed a trial.
3. Shri.
Balwant Singh Walia, father of Ishatinder Singh accused, was working as Manager
of State Bank of Patiala, Yamunanagar Branch, in February 1974. He was residing
with other members of his family at Yamunanagar in the Bank premises itself. In
the neighborhood of these premises are the house of Pardip Kumar accused and
the dry cleaning shop of Shri Amar Singh. P.W. styled as “Diamond Dry Cleaners.
Shri Amar Singh P.W. along with his deceased son, Sarabjit Singh and other
members of his family was putting up just behind his shop. Shri Amar Singh’s
dry cleaning concern is the biggest in the twin towns of Yamunanagar and Jagadhari
and he also owns about 27 acres of agricultural land in District Hissar and
Kurakshetra. He is also an assessee to
Income tax also
Accused Pardeep
Kumar and Ishatinder Singh were students in Pre University class in Guru Nanak
Khalsa College, Yamunanagar and Sarabjit Singh of the same class in Mukand Lal
National College, Yamunanagar, in February 1974. Both the accused and Sarabjit
Singh are said to be friends and they used to move together. Premier President Car
bearing Registration No. 9590 belongs to accused Ishatinder Singh’s father and
the word “WALIA” is painted on the top of its back Number Plate. Ishatinder
Singh accused knows driving and was in possession of his driving license Ex.
P.BB in February, 1974.
The
prosecution version, in brief, is that accused Pardeep Kumar had enquired from
Shri. Amar Singh P.W., about his son Sarabjit Singh on the evening of 14.2.1974
and then on the morning of 15.2.1974. He had again made enquiries about
Sarabjit Singh from Shri Amar Singh P.W. on 15.2.1974 at about 10a.m. through a
telephone call, although he had then described himself to be one Sushil Kumar.
At that time Sarabjit Singh was away to attend his classes at M.L.N. College,
Yamunanagar. Pardeep Kumar, accused, had then come to that college and had
stopped Sarabjit Singh when he was going inside the classroom along with P.W.
Tejpal Singh. Pardeep Kumar accused then took Sarabjit Singh aside and talked
for a few minutes. P.W. Tejpal Singh interrupted them by saying that the bell
had already been rung and period commenced. Thereupon Sarabjit Singh had come
inside the class room and Pardip Kumar went away. On enquiry from Tejpal Singh
P.W. Sarabjit Singh had told him that Pardeep Kumar accused had come to invite
him to newly released picture “Anuraag” of which the first show was to commence
at 12 noon onwards in New Yamuna Talkies, Yamunanagar. Sarabjit Singh had asked
P.W Tejpal Singh also to accompany him to the picture, if he liked. Tejpal
Singh P.W. had, however, expressed his inability to accompany him, as he was to
go to Saharanpur after college hours for getting the grinder of his brother’s
optician shop repaired. Subsequently Sarabjit Singh had left the college
along with his other friend Bhupinder
Singh, P.W. at about 11a.m. to see the picture after obtaining permission from
Prof. Romesh Kumar, P.W, Sarabjit Singh
was then carrying plastic cover Ex.P.20 containing his notebooks Ex.P.20/1-5.
When Sarabjit Singh and Bhupinder Singh had so reached the picture house and
Ishatinder Singh accused, sitting on the steering of his car PUP 9590 parked
nearby. Pardip Kumar,
(Contd on P,
5)
accused then
called Sarabjit Singh aside and exchanged some words with him. Thereupon Sarabjit
Singh asked P.W. Bhupinder Singh, that his ticket for the show was already with
Pardip Kumar and he should purchase his own ticket. As it was the first show of
a newly released picture, there was a great rush at the cinema. P.W. Bhupinder Singh then tried to get inside
the rush for purchasing his ticket and in the meanwhile accused Ishatinder
Singh and Pardip Kumar left the cinema premises in the car after making
Sarabjit Singh sit in between them. The accused had thereafter brought the car
on the eastern bank of Western Jamna Canal and started towards Dadupur/Tajewala
side. When they had passed from in front of the office of Improvement Trust on
their way to the canal, they were seen going in the car along with Sarabjit
Singh by P.W. Gurdip Singh, an employee of the trust. Ishatinder Singh accused,
had stopped the car on the canal bank near the abaadi of village Shekhon Majra,
where Arjan Singh P.W. was then grazing the cattle. Thereafter both the accused
had got down and required Arjan Singh P.W. to supply water to them for
consuming liquor. P.W. Arjan Singh told them that he was not having any
utensil, he was unable to oblige them Thereupon Ishatinder Singh accused had
taken out Ex. 18, a set of small plastic
glasses which contained glasses ex. 18/1-4. After separating the glasses from
this set, he asked Arjan Singh P.W. to supply water to them. P.W. Arjan Singh then brought water in all
these glasses from the nearby flowing canal. Then
(….contd, on
p.6)
the accused
as also Sarabjit Singh consumed liquor. And P.W. Arjan Singh was also offered a
small quantity thereof. After taking the liquor, the accused wanted to throw
the bottle in the flowing water of the canal. However, on a request made by
Arjan Singh P.W. that the empty bottle i.e. ex. P19, was handed over to him. Thereafter
the accused in the company of Sarabjit Singh deceased had left in the car
towards Tajewala Head works. The prosecution case, further is that thereafter
both the accused had committed the murder of Sarabjit Singh by causing him
fatal injuries by kirpan Ex.P.1, carried by ishatinder Singh accused and also
by strangulation in bushes near R.D. No. 37 at a distance of about a mile from
the place where they had earlier shared drinks with the deceased and Arjan
Singh P.W. After the accused had committed the crime, they had turned back to
Yamunanagar in the car. However, as they were then highly perturbed, Ishatinder
Singh accused had hit the car rim of the right rear wheel of the car with one
big stones stuck up by the side of canal bank near mile stone 10/2. It has
resulted in causing that rim damaged. Ishatinder Singh and Pardip Kumar accused
had then brought the car to Motor mechanic Gurbux Singh P.W. at Yamunanagar,
from whom this car used to be previously repaired. After seeing the damaged
rim, Gurbux Singh P.W. told the accused that it involved extensive repair
(Contd. on
…p.7)
or
replacement and that he could only remove the damage temporarily. When P.W.
Gurbux Singh starting repairing the rim, he enquired from the accused as to how
the same had been damaged? Ishatinder Singh told him that they had taken the
car towards Dadupur for roaming about and that the rim had been damaged because
of its striking against a heavy stone. After the defect in the rim had been
temporarily removed by P.W. Gurbux Singh, Ishatinder Singh and Pardip Kumar,
accused, had left his shop in the car.
Then at
about 6 p.m. on the same day i.e. 1974, two small children had left a 20 paise
stamped envelope containing a letter, at the counter near Shri Amar Singh P.W.
at his dry cleaning shop, when he was attending his customers and clearing
their rush, After Shri Amar Singh P.W. had become somewhat free, he opened the
envelop and found that it contained carbon writing Ex.Q.2 in Hindi subsequently found to be in the handwriting
of Pardip Kumar accused, the English
translation of which is as under :
“Jai Mata
Kali”
Notice________________
S. Amar Singh.
Your son
Sarabjit Singh is in our custody. Come on Paonta Sahib Road tomorrow i.e.
16.2.1974 at exactly 3’0 clock with Rupees two lacs alone on a scooter
un-armed. Passing information to the police or bringing them or anybody else
along will mean playing with your own life and also to lose the life of your
son. The amount should be (Contd….p.8) in the form of currency notes of
denomination of Rupees hundred each and contained in some bag.
Continue
proceeding on the scooter all by yourself on the road leading to Paonta Sahib.
Stop the scooter at the place where some-one gives signal to stop it. From the
talks it will be known that we are the same persons. This letter must be then
with you. Do in the manner we have told you, otherwise the son will be
murdered. Once again warning is being administered to you that you should not
become smart. It is for your own benefit. Come on the scooter all alone. If
anybody is accompanying you, then we will not meet you, and after some days you
will receive the dead body of your son. Our men are even now around you. If the
life of your son is precious, reach immediately.
Daaku
‘Jai Maha
kali”
On going
through the contents of the above said letter Ex.Q.3, P.W. Amar Singh became terrified.
He immediately came out of the shop to see if the children, who had earlier
left the envelope at his shop were nearby. There after Shri Amar Singh P.W.
went here and there in search of his son Sarabjit Singh, including his college,
but could not find him. Ultimately he came to the police-station (contd…on p.9)
along with
letter Ex.Q. 2 and submitted his written complaint Ex. P. FF on the basis of
which formal F.I.R Ex P FF1 was recorded
there and then. P.W. Amar Singh had also handed over the letter Ex. Q.2 to the
police at the very time. S.I Sukhdev Sharma, after recording F.I.R. Ex.P. FF/I
on 15.2.1974 at 8 p.m. had made further enquiries from P.W. Amar Singh and had
then recorded his supplementary statement at about 9 p.m. He had then
accompanied Shri Amar Singh P.W. to his shop-cum-residence for investigating
the case.
From there
S.I. Sukhdev Sharma had sent a constable for summoning Pardip Kumar accused.
Pardeep Kumar accused, however was not available. S.I. Sukhdev Sharma had
continued conducting the investigation on 16.2. 1974 and on that day recorded
statements of P.W.s Bhupinder Singh and Gurdip Singh. After recording their
statements, he again got searched Pardip Kumar accused as also Ishatinder Singh
accused at their houses and at other
places, but neither of them could still be found. S.I Sukhdev Sharma had then
raided the houses of the two accused in the early hours of the morning of
17.2.1974 and had in this manner arrested Pardip Kumar accused at about 5.15
a.m. and Ishatinder Singh accused at about 6 a.m. from their respective houses.
Thereafter he had brought both the accused to the police station. Then at about
8 a.m. S.I. Sukhdev Sharma had interrogated Pardip Kumar accused in presence of
P.W.s Mangal Sain and Piare Lal. Pardip
Kumar accused had then made a disclosure statement Ex. P.X. that he had kept
concealed (Contd…p.10)
body of Sarabjit Singh in the bushes towards
the eastern bank of western canal and that he could get the same recovered.
Pardip Kumar accused had signed the statement and witness present attested the
same. Thereafter S.I. Sukhdev Sharma had summoned Ishatinder Singh accused and
interrogated him. Ishatinder Singh accused then had come out with disclosure
statement Ex.PY to the effect that he could make observe a place where there
were skid marks of a tyre of his car on the banks of Western Jamna canal; that
he had kept concealed a small kirpan underneath the clothes in a trunk in that
room of his house that adjoins the room containing the holy Granth sahib., and
could that he could get the weapon
recovered and further that he had kept concealed the file cover of Sarabjit
Singh inside the heap of bricks within the premises of his house and that he
could also get the same recovered. Ishatinder Singh had signed his this
disclosure statement and witnesses present attested the same. Shortly after the
interrogation of the two accused, Inspector Ranbir Sharan, the S.H.O. also
arrived in the police station. S.I. Sukhdev Sharma apprised him of the progress
of the interrogation. Thereafter Inspector Ranbir Sharan took the investigation
in his own hand. In the meanwhile Sarvshri Santokh Singh, Sardar Singh, and
deceased’s father Amar Singh had also come to the police station. Inspector
Ranbir Sharan summoned photographer Tarsem Lal
(Contd….p.11)
through a
telephonic message. Thereafter he had taken the two accused towards western
Jamna canal in a police van in the company of all present, excepting Shri Amar
Singh P.W. who had left the police station weeping saying that he would not be
able to stand the sight of the dead body of his son. When the police van was so
covering the distance on the eastern bank of the canal and was near N.D. No 37,
Pardip Kumar accused made it stop by thumping the tin sheet of the rear of the
van and shouting. Thereafter all, excepting Ishatinder Singh accused, alighted
from therein. Pardip Kumar accused had then led the police party accompanied by
non-official P.W.s to a distance of about 25 karmas from the canal bank inside
the bushes and led to the recovery of dead body of Sarabjit Singh, which had
numerous sharp edged injuries on it.
It was taken
into possession vide memo. Ex.P.X/I. Inspector Ranbir Sharan then prepared
inquest report Ex.P.C. and recorded statements of P.W. Piere Lal, Mangal Sain,
and Sardar Singh in it. From near the
dead body, he had also collected blood stained earth and had converted the same
into a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.P.Z. He had also prepared rough site plan
Ex.P.HH of the place of recovery of the dead body and injury statement Ex.P.B.
Thereafter Pardeep Kumar was brought to the van. Thereafter Ishatinder Singh
accused had led the police party on foot to a distance of about 3/4th
of a mile towards Tajewala and made all present observe a place by the side of
the canal bank, where there were skid marks of the tyre of a car. Inspector
Ranbir Sharan prepared its mould
(Contd…p.12)
Ex. M/1 and
got it signed from the witnesses present. He had taken that mould into
possession vide memo Ex. P.Y/1. Rough site plan Ex.P.JJ of that place was also
prepared before the police party had returned to the van. P.W. Tarsem Lal had
taken the photographs of the act of Pardip Kumar accused and that of Ishatinder
Singh accused, when the dead body and skid marks were recovered in pursuance of
their disclosure statements. The positive prints of which are Exs. P.Q/1 to
P.Q/5 are those of the dead body from various angles. When the party was still
near the van by the side of R.D. No. 37 P.W. Arjan Singh, who was then on way
to Khizrabad on his cycle for making purchases, had come near it on seeing the
accused in the custody of the police out of curiosity, as he had taken liquor
in their company only two days earlier. After his examination the police had
sent him to his house in the van, from where he had brought empty bottle
Ex.P.19. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.M.
Thereafter the
police had brought both the accused, the dead body and non-official P.Ws in the
van to civil hospital Jagadhari. After leaving the dead body in that hospital
for Post mortem examination, Inspector Ranbir Sharan had set out for police station,
Yamunanagar. When he was at Gobindpuri crossing, car PUP 9590 was seen coming
from the side of Yamunanagar and it was then being driven by Shri Balwant
Singh, its owner. Inspector Ranbir Sharan made the car stop and took the same
into possession. Registration book Ex.P.EE/1 as also set of plastic glasses
Ex.P.18 were found lying in the place meant for keeping articles in the dash board opposite front
left seat. The car as also these articles were taken into possession vide memo
Ex.P.EE in the presence of P.W Kishan Singh. On return to the police station,
Inspector Ranbir Sharan had deposited the sealed parcels of the case property
with seals intact with MHC Devi Chand. On that day he could not take accused
Ishatinder Singh to his house for getting other articles recovered in pursuance
of his discovery statement, as Hon’ble Chief Minister had arrived in the town
and he was required to be present on VIP duty. He had remained on that duty
till about 5 p.m. on 18.2. 1974
After return
to the police station at 5.30 p.m. on 18.2.1974, Inspector Ranbir Sharan had
taken both the accused in the police van to the house of Ishatinder Singh
accused in the company of P.W.s Mangal Sain, Piare Lal and Ashwani Kumar.
Leaving Pardip Kumar accused in custody in the van, Ishatinder Singh accused
had led the police party accompanied by non-official P.W.s to a room inside his
house and then from a trunk and under some clothes he had taken out kirpan Ex.
P.1/A. When the kirpan was unsheathed, it was found to be stained with dry blood.
Inspector Ranbir Sharan prepared sketches Ex.P.1/A-1 of the kirpan and the
( Contd.
…p.14)
Sheeth and
after converting them into sealed parcels took them into possession vide memo
Ex.P.Y/2. Thereafter Ishatinder Singh accused had led the police party to the
heap of bricks in the rear of his house and then from within the same he had
taken out file cover Ex.P.20, containing notebooks Ex. P.20/1-5 belonging to
Sarabjit Singh deceased. These were converted into a sealed parcel and taken
into possession vide memo Ex.P.Y/3. As
the original writing of Ex.Q.2 was not found in these notebooks, Inspector
Ranbir Sharan had again interrogated Ishatinder Singh accused and he had then
come out with his disclosure statement Ex.P.AA that he had thrown the pieces of
the writing after the same had been torn in the khola just behind the back wall
of his house and that he could get those recovered. Ishatinder Singh accused
had signed that statement and witnesses present attested the same. In pursuance
of this disclosure statement, Ishatinder Singh accused collected torn pieces of
writing ExQ.1 from near the rubbish in that khola and then handed over the same
to the police. S.I. Ranbir Sharan pasted the available torn pieces on paper
Ex.Q.1. and got the same as recovery memo Ex. P.AA/1 attested from the
witnesses present. Ex.P.LL is the rough site plan of the house of Ishatinder
Singh accused and its neighbourhood. From that house Inspector Ranbir Sharanhad
also taken into possession
(Contd….p15)
Driving
licence Ex.PBB of Ishatinder Singh vide memo Ex.P.BB/1. There he had also got removed clothes Exs.
P.6 to P.10 from the person of Ishatinder Singh Accused and had converted them
into a sealed parcel vide memo Ex. P.CC. Similarly he had also taken into possession
clothes Ex.P.2 to P.5 of Pardip Kumar accused, after a change was provided to
him, before converting them into a sealed parcel vide memo Ex, P.DD.
During the
course of the investigation, specimen mould Ex. S.1 to S5 of all the tyre
impressions of car PUP 9590 were taken in the immediate presence of Shri. Ved Raj
Tuteja. Executive Mgistrate 2nd class Jagadhri, vide memo Ex.P.K. Similarly
specimen writing of Pardip Kumar accused Ex.P.G/2 to P.G/11 as also their
carbon copies Ex.P.G /2-A to P.G./2 J were taken on 26.2.1974 and writings ExP.G/12
to p.G.?17 of the same accused on 8.8.1974 in the presence of Shri. G.N. Sharma,
Judicial magistrate Ist class, Jagadhari. Shri. Kidar Nath Prasad, handwriting
expert of Forensic Laboratory, Chandigarh, has opined that writings Ex. Q.1 and
Q.2 were prepared in the same carbon process and that their maker was the same,
who has given specimen writings before Sh. G.N. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Ist
class, Jagadhari, i.e. Pardip Kumar accused. Dr. Jahan Singh of Forensic
Science Laboratory, Haryana, Rohtak, has found that crime tyre mould Ex.M/1
could have been caused by any of the specimen impressions of the tyres of car
PUP 9590 S.1 and S.4. Shri. R.K. Bhatnagar, Assistant
(Contd…p.16)
Director
Serology, Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Rohtak, has testified that the
blood collected from near the dead body and as found on the kirpan Ex.P.1 is of
human origin. During the course of investigation, site plan Ex.P.N. of the
place of recovery of dead body was got prepared from Patwari Shugan Masaib and
Ex.P.C. of the place, where from Sarabjit Singh is stated to have been abducted
prior to his murder from draftsman Chaman Lal Luthra. The statement of Head
Clerk Didar Singh of Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Yamunanagar to the effect that
both the accused had not attended the college on 15.2.1974 and for days
thereafter was also recorded. Similarly the statement of Prof. Rajinder Singh
of M.L.N. College, Yamunanagar, who is conversant with the handwriting of Pardip
Kumar accused, was also recorded by the police during the course of
investigation. After the completion of the investigation both the accused had
been challaned.
4. Dr. Des
raj Dua, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagadhari, had conducted post
mortem examination on the dead body of Sarabjit Singh deceased on 18.2.1974 at
7.40 a.m. On external appearance it was
found that it was a body of moderately developed and built young man, wearing a wollen
sweater, white shirt, white bunyan, all blood stained, a salaiti coloured pant,
white kachha, black shoes, nylon socks as also an iron kara on the
(Contd…p.17)
Right hand. Postmortem
rigidity was present on the legs, Eyes were open, mouth closed and stains of coagulated
blood were present in both the nostrils and left cheek. The cornea was milky
compressed. Eye balls were soft and the face was cyanosed.
A ligature
mark was present around the neck above thyroid cartilage encircling the neck
completely and horizontally. Another ligature mark present on the neck in front
below the thyroid. Both sides of the ligature mark joined the first ligature
mark on the lateral side and then went upwards on the left side from the back
of the left ear over the mastered process and on the right side, right
posterior upper part of the neck. The base of the mark was hard and parchment
like. Margins were decomposed, varying from1/2” to 1-1/2 but were irregular. Dr Dua found the
following injuries on external examination:
1. A red semi abraded bruise 1- ½ ”x ¾”
front lower part of the nose extending to both sides.
2. A red semi abraded bruise 2/ ½ ”x 3” in the right side of neck below
the second ligature. On section there was coagulated blood underneath and there
was extra vacations of blood in the muscles locality.
3. A semi abraded bruise 1/ ½ ”x ½” just
below the second ligature mark left side of the neck. There was clotted blood
underneath.
4. A scratch 2”x 1” on the dorsum of
left hand. Serum had coagulated blood over it.
5. Semi abraded red bruise ½” x 1/3” at the top
of the left shoulder.
6. Four abrasions size 1”x 1/5”, ½”x
1/3”, 1/3”x 1/3”, ¼”x 1/5” on the top dorsum of right hand. The serum had coagulated
blood over it.
7. Semi abraded red bruises ½”x ¼” on
the medial side of the left thigh lower part.
(contid…p.18)
8. A cut mark 1’x1/2” into 5” in depth
going backwards 9 o’clock going backwards penetrating interior part of left
lung and upper part of heart. It was at 11 o’clock of the left nipple and 2 ½”
medial to it. It was oblique in direction.
9. A cut wound 2”x ¾”x4 ½”in depth going
backwards penetrating interior part of left lung and upper part of heart. It
was at 11 o’clock of left nipple and 2 ½” medial to it was oblique in
direction.
10.
A cut wound 2”x3/4” into 5 ½” just above the
left nipple. Depth went backwards and to the right. Heart and lungs bore
corresponding injuries on the lungs. It was oblique and 1” above injury no.10.
11.
A
cut wound 1”x ½”x chest deep on the left side. There were corresponding
injuries on the lungs. It was oblique and 1” above injury no.10.
12.
A cut
wound 1”x ½” x chest deep, just above injury no 11. There was corresponding
cuts in the lung. The blood clots in the lungs. The blood clots were present in
injuries No. 8 to 12 and corresponding cuts were present in the clothes also.
13.
A cut wound 1 ½”x 1/3” vertical in direction
on the left side back of the chest, middle part, 2” away from the medial line.
The depth went forward and corresponding cut mark was present in the clothes. There
were blood clots present in the wound.
On internal
examination, left pleural cavity was found to contain one pint of blood with
blood clots.
‘The stomach
contained about 3 ½ ounces of reddish, curdy fluid. Brain and membrane were
slightly congested. Rest of the organs were found pale and healthy.
Death in the
opinion of the doctor was due to asphyxia and injuries to the vital organs i.e.
lungs and heart. The asphyxia was caused by strangulation. The injuries were
ante mortem in nature. The time that elapsed between injury and death could be
instantaneous to a few moments and between death and post mortem 48 to 72
hours.
Ex.P.4. is
the correct carbon copy of
(Contd….p.19)
Postmortem
report and Exs. PAA/1 and R.A. /2 are the pictorial diagram showing the seats
of injuries of the deceased.
Dr. Dua has
further opined that the sharp edged injuries on the dead body of Sarabjit Singh
could be because of the blows from kirpanEx.P.1 and abrasions found on his
hands could have been received by him during the course of struggle in saving
his life, and that his death could have taken place at about 2p.m. on 15.2
1974.
5. The
prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined Dr. Des Raj Dua, P.W.1,
Shri. R.K. Bhatnagar P.W.2, Shr. Dr. Jehan Singh, P.W.3, Shri Gorakh Nath
Sharma. P.W.4, Shri Ved Raj Tuteja, P.W. 5, Shri Kidar Nath Prasad, P.W. 6,
Arjan Singh, P.W.7, Patwari Shuggan Masiah, P.W.8, draftsman Chaman Lal Luthra,P.W. 9,
Photographer Chaman Lal Luthra, P.W. 10, Piere Lal, P.W.11, Head Clerk Didar
Singh P.W. 12., Prof. Rajinder Singh P.W.13., Prof. Romesh Kumar P.W.14., Tej
Pal Singh P.W.15., Bhupinder Singh P.W.16., Gurdip Singh, P.W.17., Mangal Sain,
P.W. 18., Kishan Singh, P.W. 19., Gurbux Singh P.W. 20., Ashwani Kumar P.W. 21,
Sardar Singh, P.W. 22,. Amar Singh P.W. 23, S.I. Sukhdev Sharma P.W.24, and
Inspector ranbir Sharan P.W. 25.The learned P.P. has given up the remaining
P.Ws as unnecessary. He has tendered in evidence affidavits Ex, P.MM to P.QQ of
A.S.I. Durga Prashad, MHC Devi Chand, Constables Mahavir Singh, Constable
Randhir Singh No,894 and Constable Randhir Singh No. 499 respectively, as their
(Contd…p.20)
As their evidence
was of formal character and the defense had no objection to their examination
of affidavits. He has also tendered the report Ex. P.RR of the Chemical Examiner
before closing the case for prosecution.
6. Both the accused,
in their examination under section 313 Cr. P.C., have denied the prosecution
allegation against them and have stated that they were innocent. Both of them
have, however, admitted that they resided in the neighborhood of the house of
Sarabjit Singh in February, 1974, but have denied their friendship with him.
Both of them have further stated that the police had obtained their signatures
on various papers under pressure and deceitful means. Pardip Kumar accused has
emphatically denied that he was the scribe of writing Ex. Q.1. or the alleged
carbon copy Ex.Q.2. Both accused have asserted that they were arrested by the
police much earlier to the morning of 17.2 1974 and that subsequently the
police had been getting them photographed at various points on the banks of
Western Jamna canal.
7. After
hearing the learned P.P. and the learned defense counsel, this court had
reached the conclusion that it could not be said that there was no evidence that
the accused had not committed the crime. Accordingly, both the accused were
called upon to enter upon their defense and lead evidence in support thereof.
(Contd….p.21)
Both the
accused have availed this opportunity.
Dr. Waryam
Singh D.W.1 is the Superintendent of Civil Hospital, Yamunanagar. He has said
that the police had brought Ishatinder Singh to him on 20.2 1974 when he was
running a mild temperature. Dr. Waryam Singh had further deposed that he had
then given an injection of streptopencilin (half gram) and A.P.C. tablet to
Ishatinder Singh accused, as his ailment was of minor type. He has further
stated that slight temperature of Ishatinder Singh accused, was not because of
his suffering from typhoid earlier. D.W.2 Chuni Lal, a shopkeeper of Khizrabad,
has deposed that Arjan Singh P.W. does not make purchases from his shop. D.W. 3
Sh. Rattan Lal Aggarwal, a handwriting expert of Ambala city, has deposed that
neither the writings Ex.Q1 and Ex Q.2were prepared in the same carbon process
nor was their scribe the same person who had given his specimen writings before
Shri. G.N. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Jagadhri.
8. I have
heard Shri J.S. Rathee, learned P.P. and Sarvshree S.S. Nehru and Faqir Chand
Aggarwal, learned counsels for the accused. I have also carefully gone through
the records of the case.
9. It has
remained undisputed before me that Sarabjit Singh was done to death by
strangulation and by causing fatal injuries with sharp edged weapon in the
bushes near R.D.No. 37 by the side of western Jamna Canal in the area of
village Gulabgarh at a distance of
(Contd….P
22)
about ten
miles from Yamunanagar on 15.2.1974 at about 2 p.m. Dr. Dua has found the
injuries on the dead body of Sarabjit Singh sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause his death and the duration between death and post mortem
tallies with the death and time of the crime. The only question for
determination is as to whether there is satisfactory and reliable evidence on
record for connecting the accused with the offence charged.
10.
Admittedly Ishatinder Singh and Pardip Kumar accused were living in the neighborhood
of the premises of Diamond Drycleaners, Yamunanagar in February 1974 in back
portion of which was then residing Sarabjit Singh deceased along with his other
family members. Sarabjit Singh was of the age group of the accused. Again both
the accused were then students of Pre University class in Guru Nanak Khalsa
College and the defense has not denied that they were friendly, and, therefore,
they generally used to move around together. They had known Sarabjit Singh,
deceased well and also the financial position of his father, Shri Amar Singh
P.W. As stated above Shri Amar Singh P.W. is running the most prosperous dry
cleaning business of Yamunanagar and Jagadhari, and is also possessed of
considerable agricultural land is districts of Hissar and Kurukshetra. There is
also no denying that both the accused were not very serious towards
(Contd…p.23)
their
studies and it was only occasional they were attending their college. The
evidence of the Head Clerk Shri Didar Singh of Guru Nanak College, Yamunanagar,
who had brought the college records with him, clearly bear out this fact. There
is, therefore, nothing improbable in the prosecution version that both the
accused had thought of becoming rich overnight by getting a huge ransom from
Shri Amar Singh P.W. after kidnapping his son. The Premier President car PUP 9590
belonging to the father of Ishatinder Singh accused was readily available with them
for that purpose and there had arisen no necessity for getting the services of
any driver, as Ishatinder Singh accused himself knew driving and was in
possession of driving license at the relevant time. The pretext for kidnapping
Sarabjit Singh was also available to the accused, as the new picture “Anuraag”
was released in the town that very day and its first show was to commence at 12
noon. There is overwhelming evidence on the record that Pardeip Kumar accused
with that aim in view, had contacted Sarabjit Singh in his college and had
asked him to accompany him to the picture. On this point we have the reliable
and trustworthy evidence of P.W. Tejpal Singh and Bhupinder Singh, Sarabjit
Singh’s class fellows, who have deposed in unequivocal terms that Sarabjit
Singh was thus taken from the college by Pardip Kumar, accused to this picture
house in the forenoon of 15.2.1974. Yet another piece of unshakeable evidence
on this point
(Contd…p24)
is that of
Prof. Romesh Kumar P.W. 14 of M.L.N. College, Yamunanagar. Romesh Kumar has
attested that Sarabjit Singh had taken his permission for going to the picture
at about 10.20 a.m. on that day and was then carrying with him the file cover
Ex. P.20 containing note books Ex.P.20 /1-5. There is not even a suggestion,
what to say of proof, that either of these students namely Tejpal Singh and
Bhupinder Singh or even Prof Romesh Kumar is interested in any manner in
falsely deposing against Pardip Kumar accused. In spite of searching cross
examination, the evidence of all these P.W.s has stood like rock and,
therefore, the natural conclusion is that all of them are witnesses of truth.
P.W. Bhupinder Singh had further seen Sarabjit Singh being taken away by the
two accused in the car from the picture house. When he himself had got into the
rush to purchase his own ticket. His evidence finds ample corroboration from
that of P.W. Gurdip Singh, who had seen the two accused and Sarabjit Singh
going in that car towards Dadupur. Gurdip Singh had so seen them on that day
i.e. 15.2 1974. At about 11.30 a.m. He is an employee of the Improvement Trust,
Yamunanagar and was, therefore, a natural and probable witness in seeing the
accused and the deceased going in the car from near his office. He too has
remained a wholly independent and trustworthy witness. His credit too has not
at
(Contd….p25)
all been
shaken in cross-examination and, therefore there is no reason as to why his
evidence should not be relied upon. Here it deserves mention that the statement
of P.W. Bhupinder Singh and Gurdip Singh, who had last seen Sarabjit Singh
deceased, in the company of the accused, were recorded by the police on
16.2.1974, when it could not even be guessed that Sarabjit Singh had been done
away with and his dead body lying in the bushes by the side of Western Jamna
Canal. Shri G.N. Sharma, the learned Ilaqa Magistrate, has testified as P.W. 4,
that at the time the accused had been first produced before him, he had
initialed the ziminies and the statements of various P.Ws then available on the
Police files. Surely P.W.s Bhupinder Singh and Gurdip Singh were amongst those
witnesses, whose statements were so initialed by the learned Ilaqa magistrate.
Admittedly
Sarabjit Singh was murdered near R.D.No 37 in between Dadupur and Tajewala
inside bushes by the side of the Western Jamna Canal. Village Shekho Majra, to
which Village P.W. Arjan Singh belongs, is by the side of that canal and less
than a mile from that place. P.W. Arjan Singh has deposed that he was grazing
cattle by the side of the canal when Ishatinder Singh and Pardip Kumar, accused
had stopped the car near him and Sarabjit Singh deceased and Pardip Kumar,
accused were sitting by his side on the front seat. As P.W. Arjan Singh hails from
village Shekho Majra, there, there is nothing unusual about his grazing his
cattle by the side of that canal and near his village at that time. He was not
known to either of the accused or even the deceased prior to that
(Contd….p.26)
Day and,
therefore, the question of his sharing any hostility towards the accused, therefore,
does not arise. He has deposed that on the asking of the accused he had
supplied water to them, meant for their sharing drinks with the deceased. As a
reward for supplying water to them, the accused had also provided him with small
quantity of liquor before the bottle Ex. P.19 had become empty. It was after
consuming liquor that the accused had left in the car with the deceased towards
Tajewala sometime after noon on that day. The evidence of Arjan Singh P.W. is,
therefore, a clincher on that point as Sarabjit Singh was last seen in the
company of Ishatinder Singh and Pardip Kumar accused, near the place where he
was shortly thereafter murdered. There are absolutely no grounds to disbelieve
Arjan Singh P.W. and to my mind, his evidence alone is sufficient to connect
the two accused with the offence of murder as they have totally failed to come
out with any explanation whatsoever that Sarabjit Singh had parted their
company at any time subsequent to their meeting Arjan Singh P.W.
The learned Defense
Counsels have argued that evidence of Arjan Singh P.W. be brushed aside, as his
statement was not recorded during inquest proceedings, the contention is devoid
of any force. The Police could not have even imagined that any person by the
name of Arjan Singh had supplied water to the accused and the deceased just
prior
(Contd…p.27)
to the latter’s
murder and, therefore, there was no occasion for them to summon Arjan Singh
from nearby village Shekho Majra for recording his statement in the inquest
report. Arjan Singh P.W. was on his way to Khizrabad on 17.2.1974 in the
afternoon for making purchases when on seeing the two accused in the custody of
the police on the canal bank he had got down from his cycle for making enquiries
out of curiosity as they had taken liquor in his presence only two days earlier
and at that time were in the custody of the police. By that time the police had
already concluded the inquest report and were on the verge of returning to
Jagadhari/Yamunanagar. After Arjan Singh P.W./ had a talk with the police he
was required to produce the empty bottle Ex. P.19 and he did accordingly.
Thereafter his statement was recorded there and then. Arjan Singh P.W. had also
attested recovery memo Ex.P.M. vide which that bottle was taken into possession.
His presence at the spot has also been supported by the documentary evidence
and, therefore, it matters little if his statement was not recorded in the
inquest report. Then the defense, in order to shake the credit of Arjan Singh
P.W. has produced one Chuni Lal, a shopkeeper of Khizrabad, as D.W.2, for
deposing that Arjan Singh P.W. does not make purchases from his shop. From the
circumstances brought on record, I am of the considered opinion that Chuni Lal
D.W. is a liar and that he has been prevailed upon to depose in the case only
to counter the statement of Arjan Singh P.W.
He has admitted that he is having
(Contd…p.28)
Four major
sons and that he also possesses 14 or 15 bigas of land in the village Khizrabad
besides owning a tractor. It is therefore not expected of Chuni Lal to remain
at his shop throughout. He admitted one of his two sons, who are deaf and dumb,
sits there whenever he is away from the shop. According to the Prosecution,
P.W. Arjan Singh had made purchases from his shop in the evening of 17.2.1974
after he had made his statement before the police. D.W. Chuni Lal has deposed
that persons hailing from nearby villages make purchases from his shop and that
he does not know the names of all of them. He has not come out with any
explanation as to what are the special circumstances for his knowing Arjan
Singh P.W. Chuni Lal D.W. could not give
dates and time when various customers had made their purchases from his shop.
Surely Arjan Singh P.W. would not have known that any shopkeeper in Khizrabad
is by the name of Chuni Lal, had he never made any purchases from that shop. P.W.
Arjan Singh had not taken any time whatsoever in giving out the name of that
shopkeeper when asked to do so in the course of cross examination. That being
so, I find merit in the prosecution suggestion that Arjan Singh had, in fact,
made purchases from the shop of Chuni Lal D.W. , might be in his absence, in
the evening of 17.2.1974. From the circumstances brought on record, I feel no
hesitation in accepting the prosecution version that the two accused and the
deceased had taken
(Contd…p.29)
liquor just
shortly before the present crime in the presence of Arjan Singh P.W. It was in pursuance
of information conveyed to the police by
Arjan Singh P.W. that the viscera of Sarabjit Singh was sent to the Chemical
Examiner and as per his report Ex. P. RR, liquor was found therein. Therefore,
the evidence of Arjan Singh P.W. is having a ring of truth in it and provides
material corroboration to the prosecution case on the point.
11. After
committing the murder of Sarabjit Singh, it was but natural for the two accused
to escape from the spot at the earliest and they were then bound to be in a perturbed
and agitated condition of mind. In that condition, there was nothing improbable
in Ishatinder Singh accused striking his car with one of the heavy stones stuck
up by the side of the canal and thus causing damage to the rim of its right
rear wheel. That collision had to result in leaving skid marks of that tyre. During
the course of investigation, the police had found those skid marks near Mile
stone No10/2 in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by Ishatinder Singh,
accused. With that damaged wheel Ishatinder Singh, accused in the company of
his co accused Pardip Kumar had brought the car to the shop of motor mechanic
Gurbux Singh P.W 20. P.W. Gurbux Singh has deposed that he was attending to the
repairs of the car even earlier and that on that day Ishatinder Singh accused
had brought the same at about 2.30 p.m.
P.W. Gurbux has further deposed that when he was temporarily removing
the defect in the rim, he
(Contd…p.
30)
enquired
from Ishatinder Singh accused as to how it had got damaged and he told that the
car had struck against something when he (Ishatinder Singh) had taken it
towards Dadupur side for roaming about. This important evidence of P.W. Gurbux
Singh, mechanic is again link to the chain of various incriminating
circumstances appearing against the accused and also fully proves that Sarabjit
Singh’s murder had taken place about half an hour earlier to the bringing of
the car to his shop. The mere fact the police had got the statement of P.W. Gurbux
Singh P.W. recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and that he had not stated therein
that the two accused were looking
perturbed at the time of their reaching his shop, is not sufficient to reject his evidence , which is otherwise
trustworthy and unimpeachable. He too is totally independent witness and has
not been shown to be either under the influence of the police or P.W. Amar
Singh. As such, there are no reasons as to why the evidence of P.W. Gurbux
Singh be not given the weight it deserves.
The fact
that the car had skidded near about the place of occurrence is further
supported from the evidence of Dr. Jehan Singh, Assistant Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Haryana, P.W.3, who has deposed that the crime mould Ex.
M/1 could have been caused by any of the specimen impressions S.1, S.3, and S.4
of the tyres of car PUP 9590. The evidence of this witness has remained
unchallenged. This piece of evidence
(Contd…p.31)
again is a
strong circumstance against the accused.
12.
Admittedly the F.I.R. Ex. P.FF/1 at the instance of PW Amar Singh was recorded
in this case on 15.2.1974 at 8 p.m. the in Police Station, Yamunanagar. P.W. Amar
Singh in his application Ex. P. F.F. on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex. P. /ff.
was recorded, had mainly concentrated on the anonymous writing Ex.Q.2 received
by him shortly earlier. After recording the F.I.R. it was but natural for the
Police to enquire from P.W. Amar Singh as to if somebody had enquired about
Sarabjit Singh from him on that day. P.W Amar Singh had then made his
supplementary statement presumably about accused Pardip Kumar making enquiries
from him about Sarabjit Singh, firstly on the evening 0f 14.2.1974 and then
twice on 15.21974. P.W. Amar Singh having made this supplementary statement at
about 9 p.m. on 15.2.1974 it was again not unusual for the Police to summon
Pardip Kumar accused for its verification. However Accused Pardip Kumar was nowhere
to be found. The Police had continued summoning him on 16.21974 also, but he
had remained untraced on that day also. During the course of investigation on
16.2.1974. P.W.s Gurdip Singh and Bhupinder Singh had made their statements and,
therefore the necessity of summoning Ishatinder Singh also by the Police.
Ishatinder Singh accused also was found to be untraceable. S.I Sukhdev Sharma
had therefore raided the houses of both the accused in the early hours of the
morning of 17.2.1974 and effected their arrests. Both the accused were
therefore brought to the Police Station and then interrogated at about
(conts…p.32)
7 a.m. in
the immediate presence of P.W.s Mangal Sain and Piare Lal. Accused Pardip Kumar
was the first to be so interrogated and he had then come out with his
disclosure statement Ex.PX. which he had himself signed, that he had kept
concealed the dead body of Sarabjit Singh in the bushes towards the east bank
of the western Jamna canal and that he can get the same recovered. Thereafter
Ishatinder Singh accused, was interrogated and he had made his disclosure
statement Ex.P.Y., which he had also signed himself to the effect that he could
make observe the place where there were skid marks of a tyre of his car on the
banks of the canal; that he had kept concealed a small kirpan underneath the
clothes in a trunk in the room of his house adjoining the one containing the
holy Granth Sahib and that he had kept concealed the file cover of Sarabjit
Singh inside the heap of bricks within the premises of his house and that he
could get all these articles recovered. Then in pursuance of all these
disclosure statements, whereas accused Pardip Kumar had got recovered the dead
body of Sarabjit Singh. Ishatinder Singh accused had made observe the skid
marks, later on converted into mould Ex.M/1 near mile stone10/2 in the
afternoon of that very day. Kirpan Ex. P.1 and file cover Ex. P.20 containing
note books Ex. P. 20/1-5 were recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement
made by Ishatinder accused by the police in the evening of the following day
i.e. 18.2 1974. The
(Contd…p.33)
recoveries
of articles on 17.2.1974 were witnessed by non-official P.W.s MAngal Sain and
Piere Lal, Sardar Singh and Tarsem Lal Chopra, who was taking photographs of
these recoveries. Photo prints Exs.P,Q./1 to P.Q./6 show the recovery of the
dead body of Sarabjit Singh at the instance of Pardip Kumar accused, and photo prints P.S./1 to P.S./ 5 are of the
process, whereby skid marks were pointed and their moulds prepared at the
instance of Ishatinder Singh accused. Photo prints Ex. P.R. /1 to P.R. /5 are
of the dead body of Sarabjit Singh lying in the bushes from various angles and
photographs Ex.P.T. 1 to P.T. 6 of the process when non official P.W.s were
putting their signature on the mould Ex. m/1.
After carefully analyzing the evidence of all these non-official P.W.s,
I am of the considered opinion that all of them are of witnesses of truth and
there are absolutely no grounds for rejecting the evidence of even one out of
them. All these non-official P.W.s
excepting Mangal Sain, had never appeared in any police case earlier even once.
P.W. Mangal Sain has appeared only once in a decoity case about six years ago,
wherein the accused were sentenced to R.I.
for seven years. His mere appearance in that case would not mean that he
is in the habit of appearing as P.W. in police cases. Similarly the mere fact
that one inspector Nasib Singh had previously resided in in one of those houses,
which P.W. Piere Lal had purchased much after the present occurrence and which
he had sold subsequently as a property dealer would not mean that he is in any
way under the influence of the police. P.W.
(Contd…..p.34)
Piere Lal is
a property Dealer and during the course of business has to deal with various
houses and plots. The fact that in any of such houses a Police Inspector had
once lived would not detract anything from his evidence. P.W. Sardar Singh, who
too had witnessed the recoveries at the instance of the two accused, is a
retired Naib Tehsildar. He has served as Land Reclamation Officer as also Administrator
in Land Claims Department of the Rehabilitation Department prior to his
retirement in 1964. As such, he is highly responsible and respectable person.
The mere fact he is a friend of P.W. Amar Singh would not lead to the
conclusion that he is deposing in the case falsely. P.W. Sardar Singh has
deposed that on learning about missing of Sarabjit Singh he had come to Yamunanagar
from his agricultural farm at Dadupur and thereafter joined the investigation
of this case. The presence of all these non-official P.W.s, and for that matter
S.I. Sukhdev Sharma and Inspector Ranbir Sharan, is fully borne out by various
photographs taken in those processes. No discrepancy or contradiction has been
pointed out in the statements of these P.W.s inter se and that is in spite of
pages after pages were consumed by defense in cross-examining them. The natural
conclusion is that they were deposed things exactly in accordance of their
happenings and have not introduced any element of falsehood in the same.
Therefore, the recovery of the dead body of Sarabjit
(Contd. Ex.P.….p.35)
Singh at the
instance of Pardip Kumar accused and Kirpan Ex.P.1, the weapon of offence, and
that and file cover Ex.P.20., containing note books Ex. P.SO/1-5 of Sarabjit
Singh deceased, at the instance of Ishatinder Singh accused, fully bring home
the guilt against the accused, and leave no manner of doubt whatsoever that it
were they who had committed his murder.
The learned defense
counsels have tried to make much capital of the fact that although Ishatinder
Singh accused had made his disclosure statement Ex.P.Y. on 17.2.1974., yet
kirpan Ex.P.1 and file covers Ex.P.20 of Sarabjit Singh were got recovered in
pursuance thereof on the evening of the following day i.e. 18.2.1974. Inspector
Ranbir Sharan has clarified the position in this behalf to the full
satisfaction of this court. He has deposed that after the police party had
returned after affecting recoveries of the dead body and moulds Ex.M/1 from
near the place of occurrence , it was found that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of
Haryana had arrived in Yamunanagar and camping there and that his and of other
police officers presence on V.I.P. duty was immediately required. Thereupon
Inspector Ranbir Sharan and S.I. Sukhdev Sharma had attended that V.I.P duty
and were able to take up the investigation of this case only after the
departure of Hon’ble Chief Minister from Yamunanagar in the evening of
18,2.1974. Therefore no time was lost in effecting the remaining recoveries of
kirpanEx.P.1 and file cover Ex.P, 21 in pursuance of disclosure Statement made
by Ishatinder Singh accused.
(Contd….P.36)
Similarly I
don’t find any merit in the defense argument that since it was recorded by S.I.
Sukhdev Sharma in special report Ex. D.F. vide which the offence was converted
into one under section 302 I.P.C, at 2 p.m. on 17.2.1974. that a mould of a
skidding of a car tyre had been lifted and dead body of Sarabjit Singh sent to
Civil hospital for the purposes of postmortem examination, therefore, the
evidence of all the P.W.s to the effect that the mould had been lifted in the
afternoon a dead body taken to the Civil Hospital Jagadhari, sometimes
thereafter be brushed aside. S.I Sukhdev Sharma has clarified in this behalf
that as before 2 p.m. the dead body had been recovered and skid marks taken
note of, of which the mould was lifted, therefore, it was inadvertently stated
in the document that the body had been dispatched and mould lifted, Even
otherwise, such a small lapse on the part of S.I. Sukhdev Sharma would hardly
cause any dent to the prosecution case, which otherwise remains fully proved
from the unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence.
14. Ishatinder
Singh accused, after he had got recovered kirpan Ex.P. 1 and file cover Ex.P20
of Sarabjit Singh, in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the evening of
18.2.1974, had further made a disclosure statement Ex.P.AA before Inspector
Ranbir Sharan in the presence of P.Ws Mangal Sain, Piere Lal and Ashwani Kumar
to the effect
(Contd…p37)
that he
could get recovered torn pieces of a writing, which he had thrown. From near
the rubbish in a khola just behind the back wall of his house and in the
pursuance thereof he had actually got recovered those pencil written pieces,
which were pasted by the police on paper Ex.P.A.A/1. The only criticism
levelled against this recovery is that if Ishatinder Singh was in such an
obliging mood, there is no reason why he had not made disclosure in this behalf
also after his arrest on 17.2.1974. The position in this regard has been satisfactorily
been explained by Inspector Ranbir Sharan. He had testified that as the
original writing of Ex.p.2 was not found either in the trunk, wherefrom kirpan
Ex. P.1 was got recovered or from the file cover Ex.P/20 from inside the heap
of bricks by Ishatinder Singh, he had thought of interrogating him regarding
that original writing and, therefore, his interrogation at his house on the
evening of 18.2.1974. That clearly shows that the police was not resorting to
the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act without any purpose and
that the incriminating articles were being recovered at the instance of the
accused only when there was no other clue available to them. Now writing on
various torn pieces pasted on paper Ex.Q.1 is that writing, which was prepared
in the same process when carbon writing Ex.Q.2 earlier received by Amar Singh
P.W at his shop on the evening of 15.2.1974. The prosecution
(Contd…p.38)
has examined
Dr. Kidar Nath Prasad, Government Examiner of questioned documents, who has opined
in unequivocal terms that writings that writings on Ex.Q.1 and Q.2 were
prepared in the same carbon process and that their writing was the same person
who had given specimen writing Exs.P.G./2 to P.G.0 11 and carbon copies thereof
Exs.P.G/2 to P.G./12 to P.G./17 before Shri G.N. Sharma, judicial Magistrate 1st
Cass, Jagadhari, i.e. Pardip Kumar accused. Shri Prasad has based his opinion
on the following facts :
(i)
The
disputed and specimen writing agrees in class characteristics of writings, such
as fundamental movements employed for writing, muscular coordination, skill,
slant, alignment, arrangement, relative spacing, and relative placing of
writing strokes.
(ii)
The
disputed and specimen writing also agreed in individual characteristics of
writings judged in the form of letters and their combinations. These individual
characteristics of various letters and words found in these questioned and
specimen writings are mentioned in 15 words mentioned in para 3 of his report.
Ex.P.L. is
the report of Shri. K.N. Prasad in this behalf. He has also tendered the
negative reals Exs. P.L/1-A to P.L/1-E from which photo prints pasted on photo
chart Ex.P.L/1 have been prepared,
Shri Parsad
in his report Ex.P.L has inter alia opined in para 8(1) that writing on Ex.Q.1
and carbon copy
(Contd…p.39)
Ex.Q.2 were
prepared in the same process. For reaching that conclusion Shri Parsad had
taken enlarged photographs of Ex. Q.1 and Q.2., respectively, which are Exs.
Q.1/a and Q.2/A. In order to explain and examine in this behalf he had also
prepared transparent photographs Exs. Q.1/AA of writing appearing on Ex.Q.1 and
Ex.Q2/AA of writing appearing on Ex.Q.2. A bare perusal of these transparent
photographs clearly shows that writing appearing on Ex.Q.2 is the carbon copy
of writing on Ex.Q.1. One has also to take no special efforts to reach the
conclusion that the maker of these writings is the same person who has given
his specimen writings before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate during the course of
investigation. i.e. Pardip Kumar accused. Now the evidence of Shri K. N Parsad
has not at all been challenged by way of cross examination. Only one question
was posed to him during cross examination, in answer to which Shri Parsad had
stated that in his opinion the science of handwriting comparison had reached a
stage where it can safely be said that it is as conclusive as any other
branches of Forensic Science, like thumb and finger prints comparison. The crucial evidence of Shri Parsad having
gone so unchallenged, this court is of the confirmed view that writing
Ex.Q.1and Q.2 were prepared in the same carbon process by Pardip Kumar accused.
This evidence of Shri K.N. Parsad, handwriting expert, find full support from
that of Prof, Rajinder Singh P.W.13 of MLN College, Yamunanagar. Prof, Rajinder
Singh has testified that
(Contd…p.40)
Pardip Kumar
accused and his family members were on visiting terms with him and that as he
has been coaching Pardip Kumar accused in improving his English, he is
conversant with his handwriting. Prof. Rajinder Singh has stated that writings
Ex.Q.1 and Q.2 prepared in the same carbon process, were of none else but
Pardip Kumar accused. The credit of Prof, Rajinder Singh, who remains a totally
independent and reliable witness, has not been shaken in the cross examination.
Although the
defense has examined Shri Rattan Lal Aggarwal, a handwriting expert of Ambala
City as D.W 8 in support of their assertion that writings Ex.s Q.1 and Q.2 were
not prepared in the same process and that that their maker was not Pardip Kumar
accused, yet during the course of argument the learned counsel for Pardip Kumar
accused has not even touched the evidence of this defense witness., far from
placing reliance on the same. From the material brought in cross examination of
D.W. Rattan Lal Aggarwal, one can safely conclude that he is only a hoax. He
admitted that previously while appearing as expert witness in case Col. Balwant
Singh vs Su0rinder Nath in the court of Sub Judge 00001st class,
Ambala Cantt, he had given the so called expert opinion that signatures of Shri
Bakht Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the defense, were, in fact, those of Col. Balwant Singh, plaintiff
of that case. His clarification in that behalf is all the more ridiculous. He
has explained that his client had by mistake supplied to him the signatures of
Shri
(Contd…p.41)
Bakht Singh
advocate instead of Col.Balwant Singh and it was for that reason that he had
given the opinion that the signatures of the learned counsel had tallied with
those of Col. Balwant Singh, plaintiff of that case. That being so, there is no
manner of doubt that the report of Shri Rattan Lal Aggarwal as an expert
witness is necessarily to be in accordance to the wishes of his clients,
irrespective of the fact as to whether that report is true or not. During the
course of trial of this case, Shri
Rattan Lal Aggarwal has tried to mislead this court by stating that he
continued to be a member of the International Association of Identification
(U.S.A.) When his attention was drawn to the roaster of that association
printed in 1974, which admittedly did
not contain his name, he took a somersault and said that non mentioning of his
name in that roaster was for the reason that he had stopped making
subscriptions since 1947 onwards, and therefore, he ceased to be a member from
that year. However in his letterhead, on which his report D.L. has been typed,
he has prominently mentioned himself to be still continuing as a member of that
Association. In this report all that Shri Rattan Lal D.W. has stated is that
the writer of S.11 and S.12 was not the same person who had written Ex.Q.1 and
Q.2. The remaining specimen writings i.e. S.1 to S.10 and S,13 to S.26 were
also made by Pardip Kumar accused before the learned Judicial magistrate and if
the word of Shri Rattan lal Aggarwal has to be accepted that he had taken those
writings also into
(Contd…p.42)
consideration
while making his report, it clearly means that writings Exs. Q.1 and Q.2
tallied with all those specimen writings of Pardip Kumar accused, excepting
S.11 and S.12. Shri Rattan Lal Aggarwal had applied to this court for
inspecting the file of this case on 7.12.1974 and as per his endorsement appearing
thereupon he has taken only one hour in examining so many questioned and
submitted writings of Pardip Kumar accused. It was an impossible feat. In order
to avoid the awkward position he had been put in, Shri rattan Lal Aggarwal had
then testified that he had taken two hours in examining the record, a patient
lie. According to Shri. Rattan Lal Aggarwal, the writer of Ex.Q1 and Q.2 had
practiced the writing of the specimen writer of S.1 to S.26 and had therefore
produced the writing of Ex.Q.2 only from memory without there being any model
of specimen writing before him. That would necessarily mean that the questioned
writings Q.1 and Q.2 have come into existence subsequent to these specimen
writings made by Pradip Kumar accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
This is highly absurd. Pardip Kumar accused has admittedly given his specimen
writings before thee learned Judicial Magistrate on 26.2.1974 and 8.8.1974.
There is, therefore, no substance, whatsoever in the opinion of Shri rattan Lal
Aggarwal that an exact model of imitated writings in the form of specimen
writings was before the person who had subsequently tried to copy the writing
of Exs.Q.1 and Q.2. A very
(Contd…p.43)
glance at
these questioned writings and specimen writings would show that there exists no
point of dissimilarities in between them; as suggested to be found by Shri.
Rattan Lal Aggarwal. Shri Aggarwal has stated that writings present on torn
pieces of Q.1 perfectly superimpose the corresponding writing on Ex.Q.2, and
that Ex.Q.2 was prepared from Q.1 and the position was not vice versa. However,
when he was confronted with his report, he admitted that he had stated therein
that Ex.Q.1 has been prepared over a transparency of Q.2. by coping pencil and
that his earlier observation that Q.2 was prepared from Q.1 was incorrect..
When his attention was drawn to the observation of William R. Harrison at page
72 in his book “Suspect Documents”, 1958 Edition, that a good stereoscopic
microscope was essential for serious work on documents and a really
satisfactory instrument has to be chosen, which he has admittedly not done in
this case, Shri Rattan lal Aggarwal has come out with an astounding answer that
the examination of various documents this case was not a serious one. Surely
the case in hand is a murder case and Shri Rattan Lal Aggarwal was expected to
have imagined the importance thereof. It was because of his examining the
various documents in such a slipshod manner only to make a prejudicial opinion
in favour of his client that even the learned defense counsel has not placed
any reliance on his evidence. On the contrary from the material brought on the
(Contd…p. 44)
record it is perfectly clear that the writings of
the torn pieces Ex.Q.1 exactly correspond with the corresponding writing of Q.2
in size, gradation, pattern of shading, smoothness of curves, and perfectly
superimpose each other showing that both these were prepared in the same carbon
process. It has also been proved to the
hilt that points of similarities between Q.2. and specimen writing are
sufficient to conclude that these had been scribed by the same writer, i.e.
Pardip Kumar accused.
14. It
having been found that highly incriminating writing Ex. Q.1 and Q.2 were
prepared in the same carbon process by Pardip Kumar accused, the recovery of
torn pieces of writing Wx.Q.1 at the instance of Ishatinder Singh accused also
fully inculpates him in the crime in question. There is not even a suggestion,
what to say of proof that Pardip Kumar accused was ever required by the police
to scribe these writings after the registration of the case. The criticism of
the learned defense counsel that the accused would not have passed handwriting
Ex.Q.2 to Shri Amar Singh after committing the murder of Sarabjit Singh is
wholly misconceived. As stated above, the accused wanted to earn a fat ransom
and become rich overnight. With that aim in view, they had already made plans
as to how Sarabjit Singh was to be kidnapped, and ransom obtained. In writing Ex.Q.2 it was specifically
mentioned that Shri. Amar Singh P.W. was to bring with him letter Ex. Q.2 also
along with the ransom. By
(Contd…p.45)
demanding
that letter Ex.Q.2 , the accused wanted to compare the exactness of the other writing
prepared in the same carbon process, already with them; so that not only
Ex.Q.2. did not reach the hands of the police but also that after the return to
them no clue of them remains with P.W. Amar Singh. In this manner the accused
had tried to be extra smart, although it is a different matter that
subsequently the crime committed by them was fully traced.
15. During
the course of the trial, a suggestion was put to various P.W.s that the murder
of Sarabjit Singh was perhaps committed by agents of one Shri Bhupinder Singh,
proprietor of Jamna Autos Industries, Yamunanagar. The basis of that suggestion
was that Shri Amar Singh P.W. was facing security proceedings in February 1974
at the instance of Himat Singh, an employee of S. Bhupinder Singh. Inspector
Ranbir Sharan has stated that initially a case under section 506 I,P.C. was
registered against certain employees of S. Bhupinder Singh and that Himat Singh
had claimed that he apprehended breach of peace from the hand of Shri Amar
Singh P.W. and 9 others that they would try to win over the witness of 506
I.P.C. case, and Shri Amar Singh P.W. would not have spared S. Bhupinder Singh
or any of his agents/employees, if the murder of his son was committed by any
of them. Even otherwise, from the reliable and satisfactory evidence brought on
the record by the prosecution,
(Contd….p.46)
it stands conclusively proved that it were the
two accused, and none else, who were responsible for the murder of Sarabjit
Singh. That being so, the contention raised on behalf of the defense on the point
is repelled. Similarly the defense contention that as it has been admitted by
Shri Ashwani Kumar P.W. 21 in his cross examination that he had learned about
Sarabjit Singh’s murder on 17.2,1974 at about 10.20 or 11 a.m. therefore, the
entire prosecution falls to the ground, is also without any substance. Shri
Ashwani Kumar is having his photo studio opposite the State Bank of Patiala,
Yamunanagar branch, where Shri Balwant Singh, father of the accused Ishatinder
Singh accused, was employed as Manager then, and in which premises he and his
family members were putting up. The premises of Diamond Dry Claeaners of Shri
Amar Singh P.W. are also nearby. It has come in the evidence of P.W.s Mangal
Sain, Piere Lal, Sardar Singh, Tarsem Lal Photographer and Police officers S.I. Sukhdev Sharma and Inspector Ranbir
Sharan that Shri Amar Singh P.W. too had come to the Police Station in the
morning of 17.2.1974, but had not accompanied them to the recovery of the dead
body of his deceased son on the plea that he would not be able to stand that
sight. Thereafter Sh. Amar Singh had come to his house weeping. Under these
circumstances, it was but natural for persons, like Shri Ashwani Kumar and
others, residing in the neighborhood of his house, to know about the murder of
Sarabjit Singh at about 10.20 or 11
(Contd…p.47)
a.m. and
also to learn as to who had committed the murder. For that reason people had
started coming to the house of Sh. Amar Singh from that time onwards to offer
their condolences.
16. For reasons stated above, I am
of the considered view that circumstantial evidence in the case is consistent
only with the guilt of the accused and that it is inconsistent with any other
rational explanation. The only reasonable conclusion from the circumstances
proved in the case is that the two accused have committed the offences charged.
That being so, I hold both the accused guilty under section 302 read with
section 34 I.P.C. as also under section 364 I.P.C. I further hold them guilty
under section 507 and 386 I.P.C. Ishatinder Singh accused is further held
guilty under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
Dt./
1.1.1975
Sd/-
Session
Judge Ambala
17. On
question of sentence, to be imposed upon the two accused, I have heard the
learned P.P. and the learned Defense Counsel.
To my mind
neither of the accused deserve capital punishment under section 302 read with
section 34 I.P.C. Both the accused, who are in their teens, appear to be
misguided youths. Their committing the crime was perhaps because of their bad
company or the effect of their seeing third rate bad pictures. The end of
justice, to my mind, will fully be met if instead of sentencing them
(contd…p.48)
to gallows,
they are given lesser penalty under this charge.
Accordingly, I sentence both the accused to
imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section34 as also under
section 364 I.P.C. I also sentence them
to undergo R.I for 5 years on each of the counts under sections 507 and 386
I.P.C. Ishatinder Singh is also
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
It is, however ordered that all these sentences will run concurrently.
18. Small
kirpan Ex.P1 and other case property is ordered to be destroyed, but after the
expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal, if there be any.
Pronounced.
Sd/- Session
Judge
Ambala
Dtd/-
1.1.1975
