Harbhajan Singh v. The State .

Kapur, J.:— Harbhajan Singh aged 25 and Kaila, Christian, aged 18, were tried on a charge of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Gurdaspur. Both of them were acquitted of the charge but Harbhajan Singh was convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

2. The deceased was Mst. Budho who was the widow of a collateral of Ram Singh father of Harbhajan Singh. There was litigation about a piece of land which had been left by the husband of Mst. Budho and ultimately it resulted in favour of the woman. She got symbolical possession of this piece of land and wanted to take physical possession of it on the 26th of April 1955 she went to the Patwari who lived in Narot Mehra, a village bout a mile from her own village, but she did not return the same evening.

3. Her nephew Gurdit Singh became apprehensive and after making a ??? for her at the village where the Patwari was he went and made a report to the police under section 364, Indian Penal Code, in which it was stated that the suspicion was on Ram Singh and his sons. The police started investigation and on the same day they arrested Harbhajan Singh and interrogated him. He disclosed that there was a patch of blood on the pathway leading from the village to Narot Mehra at a distance of 40 or 50 karams from the factory of Karam Chand P.W 10. He also disclosed that he had kept a dopatta belonging to the deceased at a place which was not very far from where the blood was found. Further interrogation brought out the fact, that Harbhajan Singh had thrown the dead body in the Upper Bari Doab Canal which was about a mile from the place where the blood patch was found When the police went there along with the witnesses one sandal Exhibit P. 2, was found. Also there was some blood-stained earth discovered and two bloodstained stones, Exhibit 4 and P. 5, found there When the accused was brought back he also disclosed that there was a bloodstained kirpan which was lying in a kotha of his residential bouse.

4. As a result, of this information the police made a search for the dead body but it was not recovered. A telegram was sent to P.W 16 Mangal Dass by the Sub Inspector to keep a watch for a dead body, and a headless body was found on the 4th of May 1955. This body, according to Mangal Dass P.W 16, was noticed by him. Sohan Singh P.W 4 states that he found the dead body floating in the canal and he had been informed about it by Rovail Singh P.W 6. The head of this body was found on the 6th of May 1955 by Piara Singh beldar. The doctor found that the head fitted the body and the body was identified by certain witnesses to be that of the deceased woman.

5. In the forefront of his argument Mr. Kohli put the question of the identification of the dead body. He submitted that it cannot be held in this case that the body had been identified because the witnesses who pretend to have identified the body had not given any identification marks which they are now giving. The first witness who has identified the body if Gurdit Singh, a nephew. The next is P.W 3 Mst. Pritam Kaur, his wife, and the third is P.W 8 Teja Singh and the other is P.W 7 Rasil Singh who was mukhtar of the woman. Although their testimony has been criticised, I find no ground to differ from the opinion of the learned Session Judge who held that the body had been satisfactorily identified. The identification marks consisted, of facial paralysis on the face of the woman, peculiar construction of the foot and a mark on the right knee. It is true that they were not given at the earliest stage, but this is not sufficient to discard the testimony of these witnesses who had no reason to identify a body which was not not of the deceased woman.

6. The recovery of the dopatta and blood marks near the dera of Basantpuri shows that there was some kind of blood spilling and that the dopatta was left there. The dopatta has been identified to be that of the deceased woman, only this, blood was also found on the canal bank where the dead body is alleged to have been thrown. These, in my opinion, are ??? to show that the woman was done to death and that her body was thrown into the canal and was subsequently found 60 miles down stream.

7. It is then submitted that the statement made by the accused to the police does not fall under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act because it was not in consequence of the statement made that the dead body was discovered. It is true that it was not discovered immediately but the police sent a telegraphic message to the canal people to be on the look out for a dead body and not allow it to go into Pakistan, and according to P.W 16 Mangal Dass he was on the look out and a body was discovered which has subsequently been found to be that of the deceased woman. In my opinion, this evidence is admissible and does fall within section 27 of Evidence Act as interpreted by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Sukhan v. The Grown . 30 P.L.R 197.

8. On this evidence the accused has been rightly convicted and the sentence is not too severe and I would therefore dismiss this appeal.

9. Appeal dismissed.