SEWA KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                             SEWAKAUR                                        A
                                    v.
                          STATE OF PUNJAB

                         NOVEMBER 7, 1996

             [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]                           B

     Indian Penal Code, 1860 :

      Ss.302134 and 201134-Murder-Appellant-wife, alongwith her
paramour, committed murder of her husband, an army personnel-She told        C
her relatives and co-villagers that her husband had gone back to his unit-
Later, when enquiries were made by the Army about the where-abouts of
the deceased an FIR. was lodged by the mother of the deceased-Both
the accused made extra judicial confessions; and also disclosed to the
police the place where they hurried the dead body-Both the accused were
prosecuted u/s 302 ands. 201 l.P.C.-Trial Court, considering the             D
eyewitness account given by the son of the appellant and the deceased, the
extra-judicial confession nzade by the accused, the medical evidence and
other circumstances like the deceased having been last seen with the
appellant, convicted the appellant and the co-accused under ss. 302 and
201 !PC and sentenced them accordingly-High Court upheld the conviction
and sentence-Held, the appellant and her co-accused were charged             E
specifical(y with having shared the common intention of causing murder of
the deceased, though each one of them was charged for the substantive
offence u/ss. 302 and 201-In the established facts and circumstances, it
would be appropriate to convict the appellant for offences u/ss. 302134
and 201134 and maintain the sentence as imposed by trial court and upheld    F
by the High Court.

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
I 144 of 1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.93 of the Punjab and             G
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 5-DB of 1991.

      K.G. Bhagat, Kamal Baid and Debasis Mishra for the Appellant.

     Sudhir Walia and R.S. Suri for the Respondent.                          H
                                  601
    602                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A         The following Order of the Court was delivered:

        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 20 I
B !PC.

         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
C 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
D she would behave better. Gurdev Singh deceased came to the village on
  annual leave in April, 1989. On 15.4.1989, Gurdev Singh had gone to his
  friend Dial Singh at Jattan Da Katha 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
E that while the appellant took the deceased in her grip, sqeezing 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
F 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
G 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 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
H Singh PW9 was threatened with death by Bakhshish Singh in case he
                     SEWAKAURv. STATE OF PB.                           603

made any disclosure to anybody of what he had seen. On the next day,           A
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. Later on 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      B
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     C
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 the registered and
investigation was taken in hand. The needle of suspicion pointed towards       D
the appellant Bakhshish Singh. They were repeatedly interrogated.
Subsequently, both the appellant and Bakhshish Singh went to Jagjit Singh,
PW! 0 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. PWIO asked them to
come to him later on. Ultimately, PWIO took both the appellant and             E
Bakhshish Singh to police station but on 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         F
buried by them. The accused then Jed 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, deady 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         G
dead body was in a highly decomposed state and the skeleton 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 trail and convicted and sentenced, as
noticed above.                                                                 H
    604                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A         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 ofSwaran
    Kaur, PW8 and the extra judicial confession made by the appellant and
    Bakhshish Singh before Jagjit Singh, PWlO, besides the medical evidence
B   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 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
C   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.

D        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 had admitted that having seen his mother having sexual intercourse
  with her co-accused Bakhshish Singh on one oc~asion, 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
E 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
F 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.
G The statement of PWlO 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, we 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.
H The medical evidence on the record shows that the deceased had suffered
                      SEWA KAUR v. STA TE OF PB.                          605

head injuries about seven months prior. to the examination of the highly         A
decomposed body by the doctors and that 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,        B
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          C
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.           D
In the established facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate
to us to convict the appellant for an offence under Section 302/34 !PC as
well as for the offence under Section 201/34 lPC 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       E
to the appellant by invoking the aid of Section 34 lPC.

       The appeal, consequently, fails and is hereby dismissed.

R.P.                                                      Appeal dismissed.