Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 607 (PNJ)

Sarwan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-31

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
Judgment JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. 1. The appellant, Sarwan Singh, is found to have murdered his father Kirpal Singh. The brother and the mother are the witnesses against him. The trial Court has found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has approached this Court through the present appeal. 2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in Village Kirtowal on the night of May 30, 1992. The time was between 10 and 11 p.m. The First Information Report was lodged by Balwinder Singh, the younger brother of the appellant. He made a statement before Sub Inspector Tarlochan Singh which was recorded at 12.10 p.m. on May 31, 1992. This statement is Ex. PW 1/A.On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex. PW 8/B was recorded at Police Station Harike at 12 : 45/1.10 p.m. The special report was sent to the authorities concerned. 3. Balwinder Singh PW 1 stated that on the night of May 30, 1992 he and his mother Swaran Kaur, father Kirpal Singh and elder brother Sarwan Singh (the present appellant) were sitting in the house. They had taken their meals. Kirpal Singh (the deceased) was lying down on his cot in the courtyard. Sarwan Singh (the appellant) asked his father to sell some land and purchase a truck. The father refused. Sarwan Singh started hurling abuses, While quarrelling he picked up a Kahi (spade) and gave three blows to Kirpal Singh. The "first blow hit the nose and jaw ... the second blow hit the neck and the third blow hit the right shoulder". On receipt of these injuries, Kirpal Singh died at the spot. Sarwan Singh ran away along with the spade. In the morning, Balwinder Singh went to the Military Camp "which is in the Mand of our village". After leaving his mother to guard the dead body, he was going to the Police Station to lodge the report. On the way he met Sub-Inspector Tarlochan Singh near the school. 4. Sub-Inspector Tarlochan Singh (since dead) arrived at the spot along with other police officials. He prepared the Inquest Report Ex. After leaving his mother to guard the dead body, he was going to the Police Station to lodge the report. On the way he met Sub-Inspector Tarlochan Singh near the school. 4. Sub-Inspector Tarlochan Singh (since dead) arrived at the spot along with other police officials. He prepared the Inquest Report Ex. PW 8/C.He noticed three injuries on the body of the deceased. The first was an incised wound caused with a sharp edged weapon "from the nose up to both the jaws". The second was an injury "caused with a sharp edged weapon on the neck". The third was an injury "caused with a sharp edged weapon on the right shoulder". The case was investigated and the challan was filed in the Court. 5. The prosecution had produced Dr. Sham Lal Gupta who had conducted the post-mortem examination. However, he was not examined as the correctness of the post-mortem report was admitted by the accused and the counsel. The report was taken on record as Ex. PX.The prosecution also produced Balwinder Singh PW 1 and Smt. Swaran Kaur PW 2, Balwinder Singh reiterated the story as given in the FIR.He denied the suggestion that Kirpal Singh had received any threatening letters or that he was deposing falsely against the accused to deprive him of the share in the property. Smt. Swaran Kaur PW 2 corroborated the story as disclosed by Balwinder Singh. In cross-examination she admitted that the attitude of the accused towards her was not good and that their relations were strained. However, she denied the suggestion that she was not present in the house or that she was deposing falsely against the accused. Rishi Ram PW 3 was the Draftsman. He had prepared the site plan Ex. PW 3/A.The affidavits of Constable Balraj Singh PW 4, Moharrir Head Constable Jasbir Singh PW 5, Constable Sukhcharanjit Singh PW 6 were also tendered on record. Sukhchain Singh PW 7 stated that Sub-Inspector Tarlochan Singh had taken into possession blood-stained earth and other articles. ASI Bawa Singh PW 8 had completed the investigation. He had interrogated the accused. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, he had recovered the spade. 6. The evidence produced by the prosecution was put to the accused. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.he denied all the allegations. ASI Bawa Singh PW 8 had completed the investigation. He had interrogated the accused. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, he had recovered the spade. 6. The evidence produced by the prosecution was put to the accused. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.he denied all the allegations. He stated that his brother and mother had got him falsely implicated in the case in connivance with the police to grab his share in the property. This is the entire evidence. 7. Mr. Randip Singh has made a twofold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that there is a delay of fourteen and a half hours in lodging the First Information Report. This should prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, Secondly, the counsel has submitted that the appellant had no motive to kill Kirpal Singh and that he has been falsely implicated so as to deprive him of the property. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by Mr. S.S.Dhaliwal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. A.S.Virk, learned counsel for the complainant. 8. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in village Kirtowal. It falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Harike. This was Mand area. It was the centre of terrorist activity during the year 1992. It is not surprising that immediately after the occurrence, the villagers who had gathered in the house of the deceased had advised the family to avoid going to the Police Station at night. Still further, it has been stated by Balwinder Singh and his mother that a member of the armed forces had come to their house in the morning. He had given information regarding the occurrence to the police on the wireless. It was when the police had failed to reach that Balwinder Singh appears to have left the house so as to lodge the report at the Police Station. On the way he had met Sub Inspector Tarlochan Singh SHO, Police Station Harike. He had made the statement Ex.PW 1/A on the basis of which the formal FIR was recorded at 12 :45/1 : 10 p.m. It is, undoubtedly, true that there is a gap of about fourteen hours between the time of occurrence and the formal recording of the FIR.However, in the circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the delay has been duly explained. The complainant was not trying to weave a story or to falsely implicate any one. It was only on account of the prevailing circumstances in the area that he had resisted the desire to go to the Police Station at the earliest opportunity. 9. It deserves notice that the accusation was not only made by Balwinder Singh PW 1 against his brother but even by the mother. Even if it is assumed that a brother could be overtaken by the greed to grab the property of his father at the cost of the appellant, the mother would be the last person to falsely implicate her son. 10. Mr. Randip Singh contended that the relations of Smt. Swaran Kaur PW 2 are not cordial with the appellant and his wife. The counsel pointed out that Smt. Swaran Kaur had admitted this fact. It is, undoubtedly, so. It has been admitted that she was not happy with the appellant. Yet, she has denied the suggestion that he was being falsely implicated. Still more, she has given a graphic description of the occurrence. There is a detailed account of the events. Her statement has not been shaken in the cross-examination. Nothing has been brought out which may even remotely indicate that she was not telling the truth. The appellant was arrested on June 20, 1992. He had remained away from the house for atleast three weeks. He had dodged the police and the law for three weeks after his father had been killed. His conduct is not that of an innocent man. We find no reason to suspect the testimony of either of the two eye-witnesses. Believing their statements, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the trial Court that the appellant had inflicted the injuries and caused the death of his father. 11. Mr. Randip Singh submits that the appellant had no motive. We are unable to accept this contention. Both the eye-witnesses have categorically asserted that the appellant was wanting his father to sell the land and to buy a truck. It has also been stated that the appellant was actually working as a driver. This being the factual position, it seems quite natural for him to have wanted his father to buy a truck. He was angry when the father did not accept his request. As a result, the occurrence followed. No other point has been raised. It has also been stated that the appellant was actually working as a driver. This being the factual position, it seems quite natural for him to have wanted his father to buy a truck. He was angry when the father did not accept his request. As a result, the occurrence followed. No other point has been raised. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, consequently, dismissed..