http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SEWA KAUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/11/1996

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave is  directed against the judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  20.1.1993 upholding the  conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court on  5.11.1990 against the appellant and her co-accused Bakhshish Singh for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC.      The deceased  Havaldar Gurdev  Singh was the husband of the appellant.  He was  serving in  4 J  & K Rifles. the co- accused of  the appellant  Bakhshish Singh was living in the neighbourhood of  the appellant in the village. He developed illicit relations  with Sewa  Kaur, appellant.  According to Swaran Kaur, PW8 - mother of the deceased, in the year 1986, the appellant  eloped with  Bakhshish Singh and had remained out of  the village  for about one and a half months. On the matter being  reported to  the police,  the  SHO  of  police station Hariana  apprehended both  of them and the appellant was handed  over to  the village panchayat on assurance that she would  behave better.  Gurdev Singh deceased came to the village on  annual leave in April, 1989. On 15.41989, Gurdev Singh had  gone to  his friend Dial Singh at Jattan Da Kotha and returned  at about  9.00 p.m. after taking his meals and liquor. Reaching  back his  house, he  rebuked his wife Sewa Kaur, the appellant herein for the illicit relations she was having with Bakhshish Singh her co-accused. A quarrel ensued and it is alleged that while the appellant took the deceased in her  grip, squeezing  his testicles, Bakhshish Singh, her co-accused who  came to that room, bolted it from inside and gave a danda blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he  fell down.  Ranjit Singh  Rana,  PW9  son  of  the appellant and  the deceased  saw his  father being assaulted and  raised  an  alarm.  He  was  threatened  by  co-accused Bakhshish Singh and also given a daang blow which hit PW9 on his nose.  PW9 was  detailed in  another room. The appellant and Bakhshish  Singh finding  Gurdev Singh to have died, put the dead  body in  a gunny  bag and  removed it on a bicycle towards  the   village  pond.  PW9  saw  the  appellant  and Bakhshish Singh  removing the  dead body  from the window of the room  where he  was detained.  He saw  the appellant was also carrying  with her  a Kasi.  Both the appellant and her co-accused returned  to the house after about one and a half

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

hours and  the co-accused  of the appellant washed the blood stains from  the wall  and also  cleaned the floor to remove traces of blood. While the walls were white washed, cow dung mixed with water was used to plaster the floor. Ranjit Singh PW9 was  threatened with death by Bakhshish Singh in case he made any  disclosure to  anybody of what he had seen. On the next day,  Dial Singh,  friend of deceased Gurdev Singh came to the  house of  Gurdev  Singh  and  on  enquiry  from  the appellant was  told that  the deceased had gone to his house in village  after giving  beating to  her. Lateron also when some of the villagers and others made enquiries about Gurdev Singh, the  appellant told them that after giving beating to her, he  had returned  to his  unit. The matter rested thus. Since, Gurdev  Singh did not report back for duty, enquiries were  made   by  his  unit  by  writing  letters  about  his whereabouts. He was declared a deserter and a search for him started. It  was at  that point of time that suspicion arose regarding the  whereabouts of Gurdev Singh who had been last seen alive  on 15.4.1989 with the appellant. Swaran Kaur PW8 - mother of the deceased made a written report to the Senior Superintendent of  Police, Hoshiarpur after having failed to get any help from the local police to trace out her son. She expressed doubts  about the complicity of the appellant, her paramour Bakhshish Singh and Paro, mother of Bakhshish Singh on the disappearance of her son. It was on the basis of that written report  that  an  FIR  came  to  be  registered  and investigation was  taken in  hand. The  needle of  suspicion pointed towards  the appellant  Bakhshish Singh.  They  were repeatedly interrogated.  Subsequently, both  the  appellant and Bakhshish  Singh went  to Jagjit Singh, PW10 and made an extra judicial  confession to  him regarding  the murder  of Gurdev Singh and requested him to make them surrender before the police,  in view  of his good relations with the police. PW10 asked  them to  come to  him lateron.  Ultimately, PW10 took both  the  appellant  and  Bakhshish  Singh  to  police station but  all the  way, near the Octroi post, when he met the police officials, he handed over the two accused to them on 2.11.1989.  After the  appellant and Bakhshish Singh were taken  into   custody  by   the  police,   they  were  again interrogated. Each  one of  them made a disclosure statement (Ex.P.22 and  Ex.P.23) to  the effect  that they could point out the  place where  the dead body of Gurdev Singh had been buried by them. The accused then led the police party to the Choe (rivulet) and pointed out the place where the dead body of Gurdev  Singh was stated to be buried. After removing the earth, dead  body of  Gurdev Singh  was recovered  from that place in  a  decomposed  state.  After  preparation  of  the inquest report  the dead  body  was  sent  for  post  mortem examination. The  dead body was in a highly decomposed state and the  skelton was  sent for  examination by  Dr.  Jagdish Gargi, Professor  and Head  of the  Department  of  Forensic Medicine. The  dead body was identified to be that of Gurdev Singh and  on completion  of  the  investigation,  both  the appellant and  Bakhshish Singh  were sent  up for  trial and convicted and sentenced, as noticed above.      Both the  trial court and the High Court considered the evidence of  PW9 Ranjit  Singh Rana,  the sole  eye-witness. Both the  courts critically analysed his statement and found his testimony  to be consistent, cogent and trustworthy. The courts below  also considered  the evidence  of Swaran Kaur, PW8 and  the extra judicial confession made by the appellant and Bakhshish  Singh before  Jagjit Singh, PW1O, besides the medical  evidence  furnished  by  Dr.  Devinder  Singh,  Dr. Jagdish Gargi  and Dr.  Sulakshna Kakkar. Ranjit Singh Rana, PW9 who  was given  a dang  blow by  Bakhshish Singh when he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

raised an  alarm seeing  his father being assaulted had also been  medically   examined  and   the  injury  on  the  nose corroborated the  testimony given  by him.  On the  basis of this evidence  and other  circumstances  like  the  deceased having been seen last alive with the appellant and the false information given by the appellant to the villagers that the deceased had  gone back  to his  unit, both the courts found the case  against the appellant and her co-accused Bakhshish Singh to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt and consequently the appellant and her co-accused were convicted and sentenced.      Learned counsel  for the  appellant submitted  that the statement of  Ranjit Singh  Rana, PW9 - the sole eye-witness could not be relied upon as he admitted that having seen his mother  having   sexual  intercourse   with  her  co-accused Bakhshish Singh  on one  occasion, he  had become  angry and wanted to  take revenge  against the appellant and Bakhshish Singh and  therefore could  have falsely implicated them. We do not  find any  merit in  this submission.  As a matter of fact, the  statement of  PW9 shows  that it  is a  statement given by  a truthful  witness in  a straight forward manner. The statement on the basis of which learned counsel wants us to disbelieve  PW9, as  a matter  of fact, lends credence to his testimony  as that  would  be  the  natural  and  normal reaction of  any son  who finds his mother in a compromising position with  a  person  other  than  his  father.  Despite lengthy cross  examination, nothing  has  been  brought  out which may in any way cast a doubt about his reliability.  He has stood  the test  of cross examination well. His evidence has received  ample corroboration  from the  recovery of the dead body on the disclosure statements made by the appellant and her  co-accused, at  their pointing  out from  near  the choe. The statement of PW10 Jagjit Singh and PW8 Swaran Kaur have lent further corroboration to his testimony and nothing has been  pointed out  to us which may render their evidence untrustworthy. Besides, he also find that the appellant kept on giving false information regarding the whereabouts of her husband to  the co-villagers  and the  relations by  stating that he  had returned to his unit and this effort apparently was to  conceal true  facts. The  medical  evidence  on  the record shows  that the  deceased had  suffered head injuries about seven  months prior  to this examination of the highly decomposed body  by the  doctors  and  evidence  also  lends credence to  the testimony of PW9. The fracture of the right temporal bone  and parietal  bone  could  have  led  to  the instantaneous death  of the  deceased and  the deposition of PW9 that his father died instantaneously and the appellant - his own mother and her paramour Bakhshish Singh - co-accused put the  dead body  in a  gunny bag  and took  it on a cycle towards the  village pond,  has received  corroboration from the recovery  of the  dead body at their pointing out. After giving our  thoughtful consideration  to the entire material on the  record  and  the  circumstantial  evidence,  we  are satisfied that  the prosecution  has  established  the  case against the  appellant and  her paramour Bakhshish Singh (no SLP has been filed by him) beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by the trial  court and  the High Court as regards the guilt of the appellant.      From a  perusal of  the chargesheet,  we find  that the appellant and  her co-accused were charged specifically with having shared  the common intention of causing the murder of Gurdev Singh  though each  one of  them was  charged for the substantive offence  under Section  302 and  201 IPC. In the established facts  and circumstances of the case, it appears

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

appropriate to  us to  convict the  appellant for an offence under Section  302/34 IPC  as well  as for the offence under Section 201/34  IPC and maintain the sentence, as imposed by the trial  court and  upheld by  the High  Court on both the counts. We  are satisfied  that no  prejudice can be said to have been  caused to  the appellant  by invoking  the aid of Section 34 IPC.      The  appeal,   consequently,  fails   and   is   hereby dismissed.