Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 439 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-03-24

AMAR DUTT, BALDEV SINGH

body2005
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Mohinder Singh aged 65 years and his son Jaspal Singh have filed the present appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 26.9.1996. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that Hajura Singh had five sons, namely, Roop Singh complainant (deceased), Janak Singh, Jagwant Singh, Mohinder Singh and Niranjan Singh. Joginder Singh son of Sampuran Singh was their cousin. Mohinder Singh was separate in mess and cultivation. He had a grouse about having received less share in the family partition of the agricultural land that had been effected between the brothers. On a day prior to 21.10.1991, Roop Singh alongwith his brothers Janak Singh, Jagwant Singh and Niranjan Singh had gone to harvest the crop in their fields known as "Nanglewala". When they were about to harvest their crop with the combine, Mohinder Singh appellant protested that this crop should not be cut. On 21.10.1991 at about 9 A.M. when Roop Singh alongwith his brothers Janak Singh and Jagwant Singh had again gone to harvest the crop, Mohinder Singh armed with a 12 bore DBBL licensed gun alongwith his son Jaspal Singh arrived at the scene. Jaspal Singh raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson for cutting their paddy crop, whereupon Mohinder Singh fired a shot from his gun, which hit on the right side of abdomen of Roop Singh. Janak Singh and Jagwant Singh caused injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh and before shifting Roop Singh to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, Mohinder Singh was being taken to Civil Hospital, Lehra. Roop Singh was medico-legally examined and on receipt of an information about his having arrived in an injured condition, ASI Sukhram Singh of Police Station, Lehra reached the hospital and after obtaining fitness certificate from the doctor recorded the statement of Roop Singh, on the basis whereof, formal FIR Ex. PJ/ 1 was recorded. He investigated the case, which was subsequently verified by Inspector Som Dutt, who after determining the version of Roop Singh as correct, got registered formal FIR under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Mohinder Singh and his son Jaspal Singh. PJ/ 1 was recorded. He investigated the case, which was subsequently verified by Inspector Som Dutt, who after determining the version of Roop Singh as correct, got registered formal FIR under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Mohinder Singh and his son Jaspal Singh. The Investigating Officer also took into possession blood stained earth from the spot, prepared the rough site planqua the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of Janak Singh, Joginder Singh and Jagwant Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. In the meantime, Roop Singh was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where he succumbed to the injuries on 23.10.1991 at 8.20 P.M. On 24.10.1991 ASI Sadhu Ram reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, prepared the inquest report and got conducted the post-mortem on the dead body. He also took into possession one sealed.parcel containing wearing apparels of the deceased from the doctor. The offence was thereafter converted into under Section 302/34 IPC. 4. The appellants were arrested on 19.11.1991 by Inspector Som Dutt. On 21.11.1991 Mohinder Singh, during interrogation, made a disclosure statement, in pursuance whereof, he got discovered his. 12 bore DBBL licensed gun. On unloading the gun, one live cartridge and one spent cartridge were recovered and taken into possession. He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of concealment and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 25.11.1991, the Investigating Officer got prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. 5. On receipt of reports from the office of Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of formal investigations, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared against both the appellants and was filed in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. 6. On going through the papers sent up with the challan, the trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against both the appellants and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Mohinder Singh appellant. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution was called upon to examine witnesses in support of its case. 7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. Karam Singh as PW 1; Dr. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution was called upon to examine witnesses in support of its case. 7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. Karam Singh as PW 1; Dr. S.S. Oberoi as PW2; Janak Singh as PW3; Joginder Singh as PW4; Harbans Rai as PW5; Labh Singh as PW6; ASI Labh Singh as PW7; ASI Sukhram Singh as PW8; S.R. Goyal as PW9; MHC Sarwan Singh as PW10; Constable Teja Singh as PW 11; HC Kashmira Singh as PW 12, ASI Sadhu Ram as PW 13 and Inspector Som Dutt as PW 14. 8. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the statements of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mohinder Singh appellant took the following plea : "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I and my brothers had a joint cultivation. I had a share in the land known as Nanglewala field. On 21.10.1991 Roop Singh deceased started harvesting the paddy crop in the Nanglewal field by a combine including the land falling in my share. At about 8-00/ 9- 00 A.M. on that day, I went to have a round of my field, where I saw my brother Roop Singh getting the paddy harvested by combine. There were 10 to 15 persons present there. I tried to persuade my brother coop Singh not to harvest the paddy crop falling in my share. At which Roop Singh became infuriated and attacked me with a gandasa and he aimed the gandasa on my head and I warded off that blow at my arm. I again pursuaded him not to cause injuries to me. He continued causing injuries. One of the blows hit on my head from its sharp side. I apprehended danger to my life and in order to ward off the danger and in order to protect myself and my property and in order to scare awry Roop Singh I fired a shot in the air, which accidentally hit my brother Roop Singh. Myself and my brother Roop Singh fell down on the ground and we both were removed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur by the persons who were with the combine. At that time no one from my family and the family of my brother Roop Singh and any of my brother was present at that time. I was medically examined in Civil Hospital, Lehra. At that time no one from my family and the family of my brother Roop Singh and any of my brother was present at that time. I was medically examined in Civil Hospital, Lehra. Again said I was removed to Civil Hospital, Lehra, whereas my brother Roop Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. After the death of Roop Singh I was detained by the police. Subsequently my thumb impressions were obtained by the police on blank papers. My gun was also taken into possession. I and my son Jaspal Singh were falsely implicated in this case in order to grab my land." 9. Jaspal Singh appellant after taking the same position asserted that he was innocent. In defence, the appellants examined Dr. K.L. Singla as DW 1. 10. At that stage, the State moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to tender in evidence the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and copy of the judgment passed in the cross case. The same was allowed. Subsequently, the statements of the accused appellants were recorded and after hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the appellants and sentenced them to undergo the following sentence. 1. Mohinder Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Mohinder Singh is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Jaspal Singh appellant alias Pal is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two years under Sections 302/34 IPC." 11. The substantive sentences of Mohinder Singh were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. 12. We have heard Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.S. Chandail, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. 13. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two years under Sections 302/34 IPC." 11. The substantive sentences of Mohinder Singh were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. 12. We have heard Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.S. Chandail, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that after alluding to the testimony of Janak Singh PW3 and Joginder Singh PW4 that from the narration given by Joginder Singh PW4 regarding the manner in which the incident unfolded itself, it is clear that Jaspal Singh on the day of occurrence, was virtually a minor and it is inconceivable that he would actually have any role to play with his father to fire upon his uncle. In these circumstances, even if it were for the moment to be held that there was no love lost between the four brothers then too it is inconceivable that the young son would have taken any active interest in the incident. The gun was licensed in the name of the father, who had exclusive control over it and, therefore, it was submitted that there existed no community of intention between the father and son in the incident, in which Roop Singh lost his life. If that plea is accepted, learned counsel for the appellants goes on to submit that the conviction recorded against Jaspal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be sustained especially in view of the fact that the medical evidence does not militate against Jaspal Singh having taken any part in the occurrence. 14. We have carefully considered the arguments and perused the record. 15. In this case according to the prosecution story, on 21.10.1991 at 9 A.M. Mohinder Singh and his son Jaspal Singh had come to the place where Janak Singh, Joginder Singh and Roop Singh were cultivating the fields. Jaspal Singh had raised a lalkara that his uncle should be taught a lesson for harvesting their paddy crop whereupon Mohinder Singh appellant had fired a shot. Thereafter the witnesses assert that they had also caused injuries to Mohinder Singh appellant. This is the consistent version, which has been put forth by the two surviving brothers about the role played by the appellants in the incident in which Roop Singh lost his life. Thereafter the witnesses assert that they had also caused injuries to Mohinder Singh appellant. This is the consistent version, which has been put forth by the two surviving brothers about the role played by the appellants in the incident in which Roop Singh lost his life. To the extent that injuries were caused on Mohinder Singh, the prosecution version is corroborated by the testimony of the doctor, who has appeared as DW 1. In case the complainant party get an opportunity to cause injuries and were successful in causing injuries to Mohinder Singh appellant, it is inconceivable that they would have let their unarmed nephew, who was accompanying his father escape without any injury. This circumstance by itself militate against the presence of Jaspal Singh, who has only been attributed a lalkara. He has not committed any overt act which enable the Court to infer that he shared his fathers intention to kill his uncle Roop Singh. The circumstances available on the record militate against him in the incident as also the possibility of his sharing such an intention with his father. While coming to this conclusion, we are also alive to the fact that in case Jaspal Singh appellant is present, it would be highly improbable that the complainant party would have dared to cause any injury to his father Mohinder Singh. He would, in any case, have intervened in the occurrence and caused a large number of injuries to his uncle and, therefore, participation of Jaspal Singh appellant cannot be said to have been proved. Looked at from any angle, the story about his having egged on his father to fire a shot at his uncle does not stand proved. The prosecution in the present case, in our opinion, has failed to bring home the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against Jaspal Singh appellant. 16. No serious challenge could be held out about the participation of Mohinder Singh in the incident as well as his intention to kill his brother. The injuries found on the person of deceased Roop Singh were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death regarding which we have the evidence of Joginder Singh and Janak Singh as well as dying declaration of Roop Singh. The use of the gun has been proved by the Forensic Science Laboratory, who after matching the spent cartridge Ex. The use of the gun has been proved by the Forensic Science Laboratory, who after matching the spent cartridge Ex. P4, have opined that the same was fired through the right barrel of the gun Ex. P2. 17. For the reasons recorded above, while accepting the appeal of Jaspal Singh, we acquit him of the charge framed against him and dismiss the appeal of Mohinder Singh appellant.