Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 848 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-08-13

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. PW-3 Gurmej Singh, a resident of village Kakar Patti Tihara, had let out his Baithak in his out house to Harnek Singh (deceased) and Balbir Singh accused for their residence. Harnek Singh and Balbir Singh were mechanics employed to drill tube-wells at the instance of the Water Works Department. At about 4.30 A.M. on September 20, 1992, Gurmej Singh evoke up for putting fodder to his cattle and shortly thereafter heard a Raula from the side of the Baithak. On looking through the door, he saw that Balbir Singh had tied a Parna (a pecie of cloth) around the neck of Harnek Singh and had thrown him on the ground. He then picked up an iron rod gave blows with it on Harnek Singhs head. Having caused the injury, Balbir Singh ran away from the spot along with the iron rod. On going closer, Gurmej Singh found that Harnek Singh was dead. Leaving Bhupinder Singh, the Contractor, the employer of the deceased and the accused, to guard the dead body, Gunnej Singh made his way to Police Station, Sidhwan Bet and recorded the F.I.R. at 5.50 P.M. on September 20, 1992, with the special report being delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at Jagraon at 7.30 P.M., the same day. ASI Pritam Singh (PW-5) then reached the place of incident and made the necessary inquiries and also dispatched the dead body for its post-mortem examination. The accused was arrested and on the completion of the investigation, he was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2. The prosecution in support of its case, examined PW-1 Dr. S.K. Gupta, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and had found two injuries thereon; PW-3 Gurmej Singh, the first informant and the solitary eye-witness; and PW-5 ASI Pritam Singh, the main Investigating Officer. PW Bhupinder Singh was, however, given up as having been won over by the accused. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he stated that Harnek Singh had been killed by the terrorists and that he had no hand in the incident. PW Bhupinder Singh was, however, given up as having been won over by the accused. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he stated that Harnek Singh had been killed by the terrorists and that he had no hand in the incident. He, however, admitted that Bhupinder Singh had rented out the Baithak belonging to Gurmej Singh (PW-3) for the use of the mechanics, who were boring the tube-well, and he along with Harnek Singh, Major Singh and Balwinder Singh were all residing in the Baithak at that time. 4. The trial court held that the eye-witness account given by Gurmej Singh (PW-3) was liable to be believed and though the F.I.R. had been lodged belatedly the delay stood explained as Gurmej Singh had stated that he had first gone to the Sarpanch and narrated the entire incident to him and also to the members of the Panchayat and that he had gone to the police station after waiting for the family members of the deceased to arrive in the village. It was also held that there appeared to be a motive for the offence as it had come on record that there had been a number of quarrels between the deceased and the accused on account of some money matter. It was also found that keeping in view the eye-witness account and the admission made by the accused, the presence of Gurmej Singh had been proved beyond doubt. The trial Court accordingly convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Hence this appeal. We have heard Mrs. Lisa Gill, the learned counsel appearing for the accused as amicus curiae and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. It has been argued by Mrs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Hence this appeal. We have heard Mrs. Lisa Gill, the learned counsel appearing for the accused as amicus curiae and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. It has been argued by Mrs. Gill that there had been an inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR and the accused had been picked up on suspicion and involved in a false case, It was also urged that the medical evidence was at variance with the ocular version as no ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased, although it was the prosecution story that a Parna had been tied around the neck of the deceased and injury caused with an iron rod thereafter. It has finally been argued that a case under Section 304 Part 1 was spelt out even on the facts given by the prosecution and the conviction of the accused on the charge of murder was not called for. 6. Mr. Randhawa has, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court on all issues. It is the prosecution story that the incident had happened in village Tihara, 7-1/2 Kms. away from Police Station Sidhwan Bet at 4.30 A.M. on September 20, 1992. It has come in the evidence of Gurmej Singh (PW-3) that he had first gone to inform the Sarpanch and the other members of the Panchayat as to what had transpired and had not immediately gone to the police station as he had waited for some family members of the deceased to arrive. To our mind, this conduct of the witness is in consonance with normal human behavior. It is to be borne in mind that the deceased and the accused were Mistries and only temporary residents of the village and would have left the village after boring the tube-well. It was therefore, not expected of Gurmej Singh, a totally disinterested person, to have involved himself in a case, which was fraught with complications. It was in these circumstances that after having waited for quite some time, Gurmej Singh had finally thought it prudent to go to the police station to lodge the report. It was therefore, not expected of Gurmej Singh, a totally disinterested person, to have involved himself in a case, which was fraught with complications. It was in these circumstances that after having waited for quite some time, Gurmej Singh had finally thought it prudent to go to the police station to lodge the report. The special report was, however, delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate in Jagroan within two hours of the lodging of the F.I.R. In this view of the matter, the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. stands explained. 7. We also find no discrepancy between the medical and the ocular evidence. Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-1) found, the following injuries on the person of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination : 1. A lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm was present on right side of scalp 5.5 cm above pinna and 9.5 cm above hair line. It was placed obliquely. Dissection of cranium revealed that there was depressed fracture of underlying cranial bone and as a result laceration of brain matter underneath. A big haemotoma was present in extra dural space pressing upon right side of brain. 2. A bruise measuring 3 cm x 1 cm was present on right mastoid region of scalp. Underlying bone was intact. Thorax and abdomen were found to be healthy. Stomach contained about 2 OZ of gastric escalations. The doctor stated that both the injuries could have been caused by a blunt weapon, such as an iron rod. The doctor had also taken a Parna tied around the neck of the deceased having a simple loose knot on the right side. This explains the reason as to why there was no ligature mark on the neck. It is, in any case, not the prosecution story that the deceased had been strangulated, in which eventuality there would have been a prominent ligature mark. We, therefore, find no merit in this argument of the learned counsel as well. 8. We are also of the opinion that the charge of murder has been fully spelt out. A bare perusal of the injuries, reproduced above, would show that great force had been used in administering injury No.1. Both the injuries had been caused on Harnek Singhs head, the most vital part of the body, which clearly reveals that the intention of the accused was to cause death. A bare perusal of the injuries, reproduced above, would show that great force had been used in administering injury No.1. Both the injuries had been caused on Harnek Singhs head, the most vital part of the body, which clearly reveals that the intention of the accused was to cause death. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.