Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) TARSEM Singh, the deceased went missing on 31.03.2000. His father, Gurbachan Singh (PW14) after having failed to trace him out, lodged a missing report (Exhibit PN) on 26.04.2000. On coming to know that appellant Gurvinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, was illicitly entangled with appellant Santokh Singh and accused Amrik Singh (since acquitted) and on being satisfied that the two appellants, in league with their co -accused, had done the deceased to death, Shivdev Singh (PW3), brother -in -law (sister's husband), of deceased lodged First Information Report (FIR, for short), Exhibit PE/2, on 30.04.2000. On 01.05.2000, after being arrested by the police, appellant Gurvinder Kaur suffered a disclosure statement, Exhibit PQ, and pursuant to that, indicated the spot, by the side of western wall of a room on the western side in the house of appellant Santokh Singh, where dead body of the deceased was buried by them (the accused). Consequently, in the presence of Executive Magistrate Joginder Pal Singh (PW7) and the police officials, as also a number of villagers, the indicated place was dug by Rajwant Singh (PW8), Surjit Singh (PW) and Jaswinder Singh (PW) and decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered vide memorandum, Exhibit PJ. The process of recovery of the dead body was photographed and videographed by Janak Raj Sharma (PW9). Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Ramandeep Singh (PW13) prepared Injury Report, Exhibit PR, rough site plan, Exhibit PS, of the place of recovery, Inquest report, Exhibit PC, took in police possession copy of a compromise, Exhibit PF, stated to be arrived at between the deceased and appellant Santokh Singh, arrested appellant Santokh Singh and accused Amrik Singh and his wife Chhindo (since acquitted) on 04.05.2000 and recorded statements of witnesses, including that of a real aunt of the deceased, namely Harbhajan Kaur (PW10), to the effect that she had seen the accused killing the deceased and that of Kulwant Singh (PW4) to the effect that all the four accused had confessed their crime before him. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW1) conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 02.05.2000, found eight injuries on it and opined, vide post mortem report, Exhibit PA, that injuries were ante mortem in nature and deceased died of asphyxia caused by strangulation due to injuries No. 1 to 4, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was 3 to 5 weeks. On these allegations, court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar charged the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and their co -accused Amrik Singh and Chhindo under Sections 302/34 and 201, IPC, but after trial acquitted Amrik Singh and Chhindo and convicted and sentenced appellant Santokh Singh to imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs. 2000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201, IPC, and appellant Gurvinder Kaur to imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs. 2000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201, IPC, vide judgment/order dated 21.02.2002, which are under challenge in this appeal.
(2.) DURING the trial, in view of the plea of not guilty and claim to be tried put up by the accused, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses besides proving a number of documents. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution were put to the accused while examining them under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, for short) but the accused denied all these circumstances. They, however, neither offered any explanation with regard to recovery of dead body from within the house of appellant Santokh Singh at the instance of appellant Gurvinder Kaur nor did they put up any plea of defence. The accused also did not lead any evidence in their defence. Learned counsel for the appellants has employed a spirited and vigorous attack against the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, saying that evidence of Harbhajan Kaur (PW10) and Kulwant Singh (PW4) has been wrongly relied upon in spite of the fact both these witnesses, ex facie, are planted witnesses; compromise, Exhibit PF, is a manufactured document as is evident from the fact that it claims to have come into existence on 09.05.1999 but does not find a mention in missing report, Exhibit PN, recorded on 26.04.2000 on the statement of father of the deceased, namely Gurbachan Singh (PW14) and neither Gurbachan Singh nor Shivdev Singh are party to it in spite of the fact that they happen to be father and brother in law, respectively, of the deceased; interregnum of 26 days between the day the deceased went missing and recording of missing report, Exhibit PN, has not been explained; there are contradictions in the evidence pertaining to place of recovery of the dead body; from the revelation made by Rajwant Singh (PW8) that the police was guarding the place of recovery since 30.04.2000 and key of the lock of the room was in possession of HC Mangat Ram (PW11) raises a serious doubt about the disclosure statement, Exhibit PQ, and consequent recovery of dead body, because it indicates that the investigating agency knew before -hand where the dead body was; and there is no evidence to prove that the two appellants had illicit relations, inter se. The learned counsel also argues that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted to be correct, still no nexus is established between the appellants and death of the deceased.
(3.) ON the contrary, on behalf of the respondent -State it is argued, with no less vitality, that PW10, Harbhajan Kaur saw the appellants killing the deceased and then they made a confessional statement before PW4, Kulwant Singh. Above this all, it has remained undisputed that dead body of the deceased was recovered from within the house of appellant Santokh Singh at the instance of appellant Gurvinder Kaur and they have failed to render any explanation in this regard. According to the learned State counsel, the missing report itself carries an explanation that efforts were made to trace out the deceased and the missing report was lodged only after all such efforts had failed.;