Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 56 (PNJ)

Jas Raj Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-01-11

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. The nine appellants, namely Jas Raj Singh (65), Harvel Singh (60), Sarupa (60), Darshan Singh (40), Harpal Singh (30), Hardeep Singh (18), Piara Singh (24), Manjit Singh (25) and Paramjit Singh alias Pampa (16), along with two others, namely, Paramnjit Kaur (35) and Hardip Kaur (26) were originally brought by the police to face trial under Sections 148/302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are agriculturists and belong to village Nek Nama within the area of Police Station, Sadhaura, District Ambala. Out of eleven accused persons the ten are closely related to each other and one is their Seeri or a co-cultivator. On 29.6.1988, around 6.00 P.M. Jaswinder Singh deceased and Gurmit Singh deceased were going to their house. When they passed in front of the house of Sadaram Singh, accused Jas Raj Singh son of Sadaram Singh and Darshan Singh son of Sangat Singh armed with Barchas (spears); Harvel Singh son of Sadaram Singh, Harpal Singh, Piara Singh, Hardip Singh sons of Sangat Singh, Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh sons of Jas Raj Singh armed with Gandasis while Paramjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh and Hardip Kaur wife of Harpal Singh unarmed attacked the complainant party. Sarupa son of Shish Ram Saini, a labourer/Seeri was also armed with a Gandasi and was allegedly present in support of the accused persons. Jas Raj Singh raised a lalkara and he along with Darshan Singh gave one Barchha blow each on the person of Jaswinder Singh as well as on the person of Gurmit Singh on their flanks. Soon thereafter the other seven accused armed with Gandasis named above also started inflicting injuries with Gandasis on the person of Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh fell down and succumbed to the injuries. This occurrence took place when Ranjit Kaur PW.4 wife of Jaswinder Singh deceased and Surjit Kaur wife of Gurmit Singh were present in the street and Ranjit Kaur had come out to throw cow dung in the dust bin. They wanted to rescue the injured but due to feat and threat given by the assailants they could not help their injured relations. Mansa Singh brother of the father-in-law of Ranjit Kaur and Satnam Singh PW.5 also witnessed the entire occurrence. They wanted to rescue the injured but due to feat and threat given by the assailants they could not help their injured relations. Mansa Singh brother of the father-in-law of Ranjit Kaur and Satnam Singh PW.5 also witnessed the entire occurrence. Then all the nine accused allegedly dragged the dead bodies of Gurmit Singh and Jaswinder Singh in the court yard of their house after the clothes of the deceased had been torn and taken off from their bodies. Paramjit Kaur and Hardip Kaur accused threw buckets of water to wash the blood and also abused the complainant side. The motive behind the alleged crime is stated to be that a criminal case was already pending between the parties. 2. Ranjit Kaur complainant went to Police Station and made her statement Ex. PM at 8.00/8.15 P.M. on 29.6.1988 before ASI Ram Kishan PW.10 and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PM/2 was recorded at 11.30 P.M. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.10 A.M. on 30.6.1988. The aforesaid ASI thereafter went to the scene of occurrence and he found the dead bodies of Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh lying in the court yard of Sangat Singh. He prepared inquest report Ex. PF in respect of the dead body of Jaswinder Singh and Ex. PC in respect of the dead body of Gurmit Singh. He also sent both the dead bodies for post mortem. On 30.6.1988, the investigation was taken over by SI Surjit Singh (since dead). At about 7.00 A.M. on 30.6.1988, HC Chander Pal Photographer PW.8 came to the spot and took photographs from various angles. SI Surjit Singh took some hair of Jaswinder Singh into possession vide memo Ex. PAA. He also took into possession blood stained earth from the place where the bodies of Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh deceased were lying vide memo Ex. PBB and PCC respectively. Blood stained earth was also taken into possession from the trailing place of the dead bodies which were alleged to have been dragged vide memo Ex. PDD. A broken kara was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PEE. Blood stained earth was also taken into possession from the court yard where the dead bodies were lying vide memo Ex. PFF. After post mortem the clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PGG. PDD. A broken kara was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PEE. Blood stained earth was also taken into possession from the court yard where the dead bodies were lying vide memo Ex. PFF. After post mortem the clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PGG. On 6.7.1988, Gulab Singh Sarpanch produced Jasraj Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Harvel Singh, Sarupa and Harpal Singh accused before SI Surjit Singh. The accused were arrested and interrogated. In pursuance of their disclosure statements Ex. PN, PO, PP and PQ, Jasraj Singh got recovered Barchha, Sarupa, Harpal Singh and Harvel Singh got recovered Gandasis which were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PR/1, PS/1, PT/1 and PU/1. On 10.7.1988, Darshan Singh, Piara Singh, Manjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Hardip Singh accused were produced by Gulab Singh Sarpanch before ASI Ram Kishan PW.10. The accused were arrested and interrogated. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PV Darshan Singh got recovered Barchha which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PV/2. Similarly, in pursuance of their disclosure statements Exs. PW and PX, Piara Singh and Manjit Singh got recovered Gandasis which were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PW/2 and PX/2. After completion of the investigation, the accused were put to face their trial. 3. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PA, the blood was disintegrated on hairs, blood stained earth and spear whereas the clothes of the deceased and Gandasis were found to be stained with human blood. 4. At the trial the plea raised by the appellants was that both the deceased, namely, Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh were murdered by some unknown persons in the paddy crop field and that they have been implicated falsely in this blind murder. Gulab Singh DW.1 Sarpanch appeared in the witness box and claimed that he never produced any of the accused before the police as claimed by the Investigating Officer. Copies of the documents Ex. DX/1 to DX/10 were tendered in defence. Ex. DX is the copy of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it relates to an occurrence dated 21.12.1987 under Sections 376/366/307 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of Maharaj Singh against Gurmit Singh deceased. This case relates to the rape of Sadhana daughter of Maharaj Singh. Ex. DX is the copy of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it relates to an occurrence dated 21.12.1987 under Sections 376/366/307 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of Maharaj Singh against Gurmit Singh deceased. This case relates to the rape of Sadhana daughter of Maharaj Singh. Gurmit Singh deceased was an army Jawan and had allegedly put the girl Sadhana in a car at the point of knife. There was another case against Gurmit Singh and Varinder Singh vide Ex. DX/1 under F.I.R. No. 46 dated 29.6.1988. The other documents Ex. DX/3, DX/5, DX/8, DX/9 and DX/10 relate to the same occurrence. 5. During the trial this case was adjourned on one pretext or the other and it took about seven years to complete the evidence. The alleged eye witness Surjit Kaur wife of Gurmit Singh was not produced and was given up as unnecessary. Mansa Singh uncle of deceased was also given up as unnecessary. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, came to the conclusion that Paramjit Kaur and Hardip Kaur accused did not participate in the crime and the main allegation against them was that of offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, the learned trial Judge held Jas Raj Singh, Harvel Singh, Sarupa, Darshan Singh, Harpal Singh, Piara Singh, Hardip Singh, Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh guilty under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They were further convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each; in default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each except Sarupa who was imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment wee ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine if and when recovered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was ordered to be paid to Bhagwant Kaur and Rs. 50,000/- to Ranjit Kaur widow of Jaswinder Singh deceased. 6. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment wee ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine if and when recovered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was ordered to be paid to Bhagwant Kaur and Rs. 50,000/- to Ranjit Kaur widow of Jaswinder Singh deceased. 6. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed Crl. A. No. 551-DB of 1996 whereas Ranjit Kaur filed Crl. R. No. 30 of 1997. As both the appeals and the revision arise out of a common judgment, the same are disposed of by this judgment. 7. The oral and ocular testimony of Ranjit Kaur PW.4 widow of Jaswinder Singh deceased in this case is relevant to determine the question of participation of the appellants in the crime. She has mentioned on oath and in detail the presence of all the appellants claiming that they were duly armed with Barchhas and Gandasis and that the attack was opened by Jas Raj Singh and Darshan Singh and that they inflicted Barchha blows on the persons of the deceased Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh. She claimed that soon thereafter the other appellants Harvel Singh, Harpal Singh, Piara Singh, Hardip Singh, Manjit Singh, Sarupa and Paramjit Singh inflicted blow with Gandasis on the aforesaid two persons. She claimed the presence of the aforesaid eye witnesses. She also stated that she did not intervene due to fear. She also stated that none else intervened on their behalf. She stated that Harpal Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on the forehead of Gurmit Singh when he had already fallen on the ground. She also claimed that Harvel Singh had inflicted two Gandasi blows on the right shoulder and head of Jaswinder Singh. She further stated that Jas Raj Singh, Harvel Singh, Manjit Singh and Sarupa dragged and lifted the dead body of Jaswinder Singh and took the same inside the house and the remaining appellants took the body of Gurmit Singh in the same manner. She denied the suggestion that she knew anything that Gurmit Singh and Jaswinder Singh her husband were bad characters and were involved in various cases and that Gurmit Singh was facing rape case as per aforesaid documents. She, however, stated that she could not say specifically as to which of the appellants caused which injury on the person of the deceased. She, however, stated that she could not say specifically as to which of the appellants caused which injury on the person of the deceased. She also stated that Mansa Singh and Satnam Singh neither intervened nor did reach the Police Station to lodge the report and she alone went to do the job. She, however, stated that some ladies had told that the accused had blocked the lanes leading to the Police Station. She denied the suggestion that the witnesses were neither present nor the appellants participated in the crime. Satnam Singh PW.5 in his oral testimony also confirmed that the aforesaid accused persons committed the crime in the aforesaid manner. He denied the suggestion that it was a blind murder or that the accused were falsely implicated in this case. 8. Joginder Singh PW.6 claimed that the appellants-accused were produced in his presence before the police. The disclosure statements were also recorded in his presence regarding the recovery of the weapons of offence. HC Chander Pal PW.8 is the Photographer who took the photographs Ex. P.14 to P.42 and the negatives are Ex. P.43 to P.71. Anil Kumar PW.9, a Draftsman prepared site plan Ex. PY according to scales. He stated that he contacted Satnam Singh and Mansha Singh and it was at their instance that he prepared the site plan Ex. PY. He admitted that he did not call the Sarpanch, Member Panchayat or any respectable persons to identify Mansa Singh and Satnam Singh. ASI Ram Kishan PW.10 partly investigated the case and a reference to his investigation has already been made. He was cross-examined at length. He denied the suggestion that it was a blind murder or that he manufactured the entire evidence at the instance of the complainant side. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, claimed that it was quite unbelievable that Ranjit Kaur PW.4 alone, being a female, would be going to the Police Station after such ghastly murders having taken place to lodge the report and the male members of the family would withhold themselves back; that as per the medical evidence injury No. 3 on the person of Jaswinder Singh deceased could not be caused with a spear Ex. P.10 alleged to have been caused by Darshan Singh; that all the members of the same family i.e. the two real brothers Jas Raj Singh and Harvel Singh sons of Sadaram Singh; Darshan Singh, Harpal Singh, Piara Singh, Hardip Singh sons of Sangat Singh and two sons of Jas Raj Singh i.e. Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh and two ladies Paramjit Kaur and Hardip Kaur would join hands in murdering two persons on that particular evening; that in fact the members of the family have been involved falsely; that Sarupa was only a seeri and had no enmity or friendship with either side; that Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh sons of Jas Raj Singh were not involved in a previous criminal litigation and they have no concern even now to participate and that the learned trial Judge has already disbelieved the version of the prosecution to the extent that Paramjit Kaur and Hardip Kaur were innocent and acquitted them; that the important witnesses Mansa Singh and Surjit Kaur have been given up and they should have come in the witness box and in fact there was no such occurrence and that Ranjit Kaur PW.4 and Satnam Singh PW.5 were deeply interested in the success of the prosecution case and were cited as witnesses. The learned counsel also claimed that none of the persons allegedly present at the time of the occurrence from the complainant side tried to intervene and there has been no idea of removing the dead bodies to the house of the accused persons to create evidence against themselves nor sufficient blood was found on the scene of occurrence. The learned counsels main stress has been that it is a blind murder. 10. To claim a case to be a blind murder and to assess the evidence in that direction there needs to be some circumstances to be shown by the defence duly emerging in the course of evidence by virtue of which a clear inference can be drawn that either murder did not take place at the given time or that the presence of the accused persons or any of the important assailants out of the accused is proved to be some where else or there is any sufficient circumstance to raise a definite inference to that effect. The story of the prosecution as it has come down from the statements of Ranjit Kaur PW.4 and that of Satnam Singh PW.5, it was only 6.00 P.M. when the occurrence took place. Almost when the sun had not set and it was the evening day light and the assailants could be identified. The dead bodies of the deceased have been found inside the residential house of the accused persons. It is not expected that the complainant side would manipulate the case to the extent that they would get the dead bodies from the paddy field bearing the marks of injuries and bleeding to the house of the appellants and the appellants would not resist it or raise hue and cry. The report has been made by Ranjit Kaur PW.4 around 8.30 A.M. on 29.6.1988 mentioning all the names of the accused. When a large number of persons participate in the occurrence, it is not necessary that the witnesses must narrate exactly as to which of the assailants caused which injury. Whatever reasonably the witnesses can remember that too after the passage of seven years when the evidence is recorded, the witnesses have stated to that extent. It has come in evidence that there was a drizzle on the night of occurrence and some blood got washed away. It did not matter and do not cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution. The occurrence allegedly took place in the street where the houses of both the parties are located and it is not unusual that the ladies of the houses are normally at home at that time in the villages and could naturally witness the occurrence. It was not necessary that all the four eye witnesses should come into the witness box. It is the quality of the evidence rather than quantity. There is already admitted enmity between the parties. It is already claimed by the defence that the deceased were bad characters. So it was already in the mind of the accused persons that these persons Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh were undesirable persons and they were becoming unmanageable. One of them was involved in a rape and murder case and in other cases. It is already claimed by the defence that the deceased were bad characters. So it was already in the mind of the accused persons that these persons Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh were undesirable persons and they were becoming unmanageable. One of them was involved in a rape and murder case and in other cases. May be that all the members of the family do not participate in the occurrence and even a Seeri may not have any grudge against the deceased and that two appellants specifically Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh sons of Jasraj Singh, who have been minor and wee not involved in the previous litigation may not have any concern in the crime in question and their names might have been mentioned in an overdoing act which is not uncommon. This Court has to sift the grain from the chaff. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in the case. The F.I.R. is almost prompt and the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate early in the morning does not leave any doubt for much of the manipulations except that we are of the view that Manjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Sarupa appellants may be innocent and the presence and participation of rest of the appellants clearly stands established. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with most of the part of the judgment and dismiss the appeal against the appellants except Manjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Sarupa who are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Crl. R. No. 30 of 1997 is also dismissed.