Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 563 (PNJ)

Balwant Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-05-04

AMAR DUTT, BALDEV SINGH

body2005
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Balwant Singh and his three sons Balwinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Malkiat Singh have filed the present appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against them by them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 30.7.2002. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that on 17.7.1998 at about 10/10.30 A.M., Bharpur Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh, resident of village Khokhar, Police Station Kalanwali (PW1) had alongwith her sons Vakil Singh, Gurjant Singh and Nachhattar Singh gone to village Gill Pati, Bathinda to meet her sisters daughter Amarjit Kaur (PW3), who was, at that time, residing in Street No.6, Janta Nagar, Bathinda. From there, alongwith Amarjit Kaur and her son Kuldeep Singh alias Gurtej Singh, they had gone to the house of Amarjit Kaur in village Gill Pati. When they alighted from the jeep in front of the house of Amarjit Kaur, they found the appellants Balwant Singh and his sons Harbans Singh, Malkiat Singh and Balwinder Singh armed with Kirpans and gandasas sitting in the Deori of the house of Natha Singh son of Wazir Singh. Amarjit Kaur alongwith Gurjant Singh and Nachhattar Singh left the house to bring milk and vegetable while Bharpur Kaur PW 1 started kneading the flour. In the meantime, Balwant Singh and his son Harbans Singh armed with swords and Malkiat Singh and Balwinder Singh armed with gandasas and Natha Singh empty handed trespassed into her house. Natha Singh raised a lalkara "Inna Noo Jaggar Singh Noo Katal Karan Atte Ghar to Kabza Karan Da Maja Chakhaounde Haan, Ajj. Ahe Bach ke Najaan", Thereupon, Kuldeep Singh and Vakil Singh sons of Bharpur Kaur tried to go out of the house in order to save themselves but Harbans Singh gave a blow with the Kirpan on the left side of the forehead and on the head of Kuldeep Singh, as a result of which, he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Balwant Singh gave a kirpan blow which resulted into infliction of injury on his right ear. Malkiat Singh gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side on the right cheek and ear of Kuldeep Singh. Thereafter, Balwant Singh gave a kirpan blow which resulted into infliction of injury on his right ear. Malkiat Singh gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side on the right cheek and ear of Kuldeep Singh. When Bharpur Kaur PW 1 intervened to save Kuldeep Singh, Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh gave gandasa blow from reverse side, which resulted into injuries on her left wrist joint, left knee joint and nose. Vakil Singh raised a Raula "Na Maro Na Maro" whereupon Malkiat Singh and Balwinder Singh gave gandasa blows on the person of Kuldeep Singh on his right and left thigh and below the knee joint when he was lying on the ground. In the meantime, Amarjit Kaur, mother of the deceased Kuldeep Singh, Gurjant Singh and Nachhattar Singh were attracted to the scene of occurrence and they also raised an alarm on hearing which, the assailants fled away from the spot taking their respective weapons with them. 3. Kuldeep Singh succumbed to the injuries. Bharpur Kaur PW 1 proceeded for the Police Station and on the way met S.I. Chand Singh S.H.O. of Police Station Sadar, Bathinda, who was present at Aeroplane Chowk, Bathinda where he had set up a Naka for special checking of vehicles and got reduced her statement in writing. On the basis of the statement, which is completed at 12.30 p.m. on 17.7.1998, formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded in Police Station Thermal, Bathinda at 12.45 P.M. on the same day. He himself proceeded to the spot where he prepared inquest report and during the investigation took into possession blood stained earth vide recovery memo Ex.PR, recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the dead body to Civil Hospital, Bathinda through Constable Joginder Singh alongwith request for post-mortem examination Ex.PE. On 18.7.1998 he took into possession clothes of the deceased, which were handed over to him by Constable Joginder Singh. On 21.7.1998 he arrested Balwant Singh and Malkiat Singh, who made disclosure statements pursuant whereof the Kirpan Ex. P 12 and gandasa Ex. P 13 were taken into possession through recovery memos Ex. PU/2 and Ex.PU/3. Harbans Singh and Balwinder Singh were apprehended on 22.7.1998 and they too made disclosure statements Ex. PU/4 and Ex.PU/5 respectively pursuant whereof Kripan Ex.P14 and gandasa Ex.P15 respectively were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex. PU/6 and Ex. PU/7 respectively. P 12 and gandasa Ex. P 13 were taken into possession through recovery memos Ex. PU/2 and Ex.PU/3. Harbans Singh and Balwinder Singh were apprehended on 22.7.1998 and they too made disclosure statements Ex. PU/4 and Ex.PU/5 respectively pursuant whereof Kripan Ex.P14 and gandasa Ex.P15 respectively were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex. PU/6 and Ex. PU/7 respectively. Balwant Singh and Malkit Singh appellants made separate disclosure statements Ex. PU/16 and Ex.PU/17 pursuant whereof their Shirts Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, which were blood stained were taken into possession through recovery memos Ex.PU/18 and Ex. PU/19 respectively. The same were forwarded to Chemical Examiner for examination and on receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, the challan was put in Court against the appellants before the Illaqa Magistrate, who upon finding that the offences disclosed were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, committed the same to the Court of Session for trial. 4. On going through the papers attached with the challan, the Additional Sessions, Judge, Bathinda found that a prima facie case is made out against the appellants under Sections 449, 302, 325, 323 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly, framed charges against them. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence in support of its case. 5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Bharpur Kaur; PW2 Gurjant Singh; PW3 Amarjit Kaur; PW 5 Dr. L.R. Jain; PW6 Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar; PW7 Dr. Satpal Garg; PW8 Sukhjit Kaur; PW9 Constable Chand Singh; PW 10 Constable Joginder Singh; PW 11 Dr. Lachhman Dass Gupta; PW 12 Sub Inspector Chand Singh and PW 13 H.C. Balwinder Singh. 6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the same against the appellants were put to them and their explanation obtained. The appellants denied all the circumstances and asserted that they were innocent and after expounding their position in the answer to question as to whether the appellants had anything to say in the following terms : "Balwant Singh accused is the father of other three accused. He got the case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Amarjit Kaur, her son Kuldeep Singh since deceased and two other persons for the commission of murder of Jaggar Singh, the husband of Amarjit Kaur. He got the case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Amarjit Kaur, her son Kuldeep Singh since deceased and two other persons for the commission of murder of Jaggar Singh, the husband of Amarjit Kaur. He had also appeared as a witness against her and other accused. She was acquitted by the Court of Sessions but appeal against acquittal was admitted by the Honble Court which is still pending. Amarjit Kaur is a woman of loose character and is habitual criminal. Earlier to her marriage with Jaggar Singh, she was married with Janak Singh son of Buta Singh of village Kalal Wala, P.S. Jaukian and she got her husband murdered from her brother Gurmail Singh and a case FIR No. 147 dated 10.6.91 under Sections 302/364/34 IPC, P.S. Bara Gura, District Sirsa was registered. She also got murdered her sisters husband Sukhdev Singh and a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 30 dated 6.5.91 Police Station Sadar, Mansa and in this case she remained in Central Jail, Bathinda, from 25.5.91 to 25.6.91. Her mother Sudit Kaur murdered her husband in which she was convicted and had undergone life imprisonment. There was a dispute between Amarjit Kaur and her deceased son Kuldeep Singh regarding the property of her husband Jaggar Singh. The deceased also used to thereaten Amarjit Kaur with dire consequences if she did not desist from immoral activities. Kuldeep Singh was murdered by some outsiders at the behest of Amarjit Kuar. On the day of occurrence i.e. 17.7.98, a police guard was deputed at their residence consisting of Constable Baldev Singh No. 1551 and PHG Balwinder Singh No. 7246 to safeguard gukhjit Kaur from Amarjit Kaur. This guard was deputed as per the orders of Honble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand, Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. They were arrested from the house of Balwant Singh (accused) on the same day in the evening. Recoveries of weapons and clothes were police padding. After the murder, the guard deputed to their house, went to the place of occurrence and Constable Baldev Singh brought Bharpur Kaur informant to P.S. Thermal, Bathinda and thereafter, Amarjit Kaur was summoned from her house at Janta Nagar and due to her pressure, the false case was registered against them. Recoveries of weapons and clothes were police padding. After the murder, the guard deputed to their house, went to the place of occurrence and Constable Baldev Singh brought Bharpur Kaur informant to P.S. Thermal, Bathinda and thereafter, Amarjit Kaur was summoned from her house at Janta Nagar and due to her pressure, the false case was registered against them. Sukhjit Kaur did not accompany her mother and was sent to Nari Niketan after the murder as they were involved in the murder case and from Nari Niketan she was brought after one month and due to influence of her mother deposed falsely against them." Asserted that they were innocent. 7 After hearing arguments, the trial Court while acquitting the appellants of the charge under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellants under Sections 120-B/449/302 IPC were proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them and sentenced them to undergo the following sentences: i) Under Section 120-B IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine to the tune of Rs. 4000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall have to further undergo R.I, for six months; ii) Under Section 302 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine to the tune of Rs. 4000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall have to further undergo R.I. for six months; Under Section 449 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine to the tune of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall have to further undergo R.I. for three months. 8. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 10. The case against the appellants was registered on the statement of Smt. Bharpur Kaur complainant PW 1. In her statement, she had given the details of how alongwith Amarjit Kaur, she had gone to village Gill Pati where Kuldeep Singh alias Gurtej Singh used to reside. She had also indicated how on reaching the place they had found the appellants present at the house of Natha Singh and the details in which the incident had taken place. In her statement, she had given the details of how alongwith Amarjit Kaur, she had gone to village Gill Pati where Kuldeep Singh alias Gurtej Singh used to reside. She had also indicated how on reaching the place they had found the appellants present at the house of Natha Singh and the details in which the incident had taken place. This witness has not supported the stand put forth by her before the police and incorporated in the FIR. If the other persons, who, in the FIR, were stated to have witnessed the occurrence, had taken a similar position while appearing in Court, the fate of the case would obviously have been different, but that is not so. Amarjit Kaur, whose statement too was recorded immediately after the incident, during investigation, has categorically reiterated the version that had been brought on the record before the police for the first time by Smt. Bharpur Kaur PW 1 Apart from these witnesses, namely, Amarjit Kaur PW3 and Gurjant Singh PW2, the investigating agency had also recorded the statement of Sukhjit Kaur PW8, the daughter of Amarjit Kaur PW3, who was, at that point of time, residing with appellant Balwant Singh and his family (the appellant being her uncle). 11. Before analyzing what has been stated by Sukhjit Kaur, it would be but appropriate that we examine closely the testimony of Amarjit Kaur as neither Bharpur Kaur PW 1 nor Gurjant Singh PW2 have stood by the position taken by them before the investigating agency. To discredit Amarjit Kaur, the defence has confronted the lady with her hoary past, which, if correct, is sufficient to push into shame many of the most notorious criminals. Amarjit Kaur PW3, it appears has a heritage of unhappy matrimonial relations, which are stated to have existed between her father and mother and had ended only upon the death of Ajmer Singh in the Conviction of Surjit Kaur, who had murdered her husband. Amarjit Kaur PW3 is credited also with having got murdered her first husband Janak Singh with the help of her brother Gurmail Singh regarding which FIR No. 147 dated 10.6.1991 under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 IPC was registered in Police Station Bara Gurha, Sirsa. Amarjit Kaur PW3 is credited also with having got murdered her first husband Janak Singh with the help of her brother Gurmail Singh regarding which FIR No. 147 dated 10.6.1991 under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 IPC was registered in Police Station Bara Gurha, Sirsa. Approximately, about one month prior to this, she is credited having got murdered her sisters husband Sukhdev Singh regarding which FIR No. 30 dated 6.5.1991 was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station Sadar Mansa. Two months prior to this, she is credited with the murder of her sister and son regarding which FIR No. 21 was registered on 25.3.1991 under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Mansa. As if this was not sufficient, she has dubious distinction of having murdered her second husband Jaggar Singh in the year 1997 and from this wedlock, two surviving children were Sukhjit Kaur PW8 and the deceased Kuldeep Singh. The murder of Jaggar Singh resulted in the split up of his family, his wife Amarjit Kaur ending up in Jail, the daughter, namely Sukhjit Kaur, taking up residence with her uncle and the son being left on his own only to take up residence with his mother, after she was acquitted and appeal against acquittal bearing No. Crl.A.273-DBA of 1999 is pending before this Court. Since the death of her father and till after the murder of her brother Kuldeep Singh, Sukhjit Kaur remained in the custody of her uncle Balwant Singh and resisted all attempts of her mother to secure her custody. The dispute had. necessitated the passing of orders by this Court directing the local police to provide her with protection. Whether the split was engineered by Balwant Singh or not, it definitely seems to have sown the seeds of a reasonable suspicion in the mind of Amarjit Kaur that her brother-in-law was trying to divide the family with a view to usurp the estate of his brother. It is in this context that the conversation that had been over heard by Sukhjit Kaur about the father and two sons discussing the visit of Kuldeep Singh to the Deputy Commissioner and the necessity for removing him from the scene assume importance inasmuch as it provides the motive for the murder. 12. It is in this context that the conversation that had been over heard by Sukhjit Kaur about the father and two sons discussing the visit of Kuldeep Singh to the Deputy Commissioner and the necessity for removing him from the scene assume importance inasmuch as it provides the motive for the murder. 12. Before the police, in relation to the incident, Bharpur Kaur stated that, she along with her son Vakil Singh, Gurjant Singh PW2 and Nachhattar Singh had accompanied Amarjit Kaur from her house in Street No.6 Janta Nagar, Bathinda to the house in village Gill Patti. While appearing in Court, Bharpur Kaur had tried to whittle down her evidence by excluding Amarjit Kaur from the list of persons, who had accompanied her to the house of Kuldeep Singh. She has further backed out of the portion of her statement before the police with regard to the identity of the assailants. She has, however, not been able to deny the fact that she was the first informant. A similar attempt has been made by Gurjant Singh PW2 but the reason for retraction from the police version is easily discernible from the suggestion, which has been put to Sukhjit Kaur, presumably out of desperation by the defence, when it found that Amarjit Kaur as well as Sukhjit Kaur were standing by the position taken by them before the police. In cross-examination, Sukhjit Kaur was asked as under : "It is correct that Balwant Singh was looking after me and was bearing the expenses of education and bringing up. It is correct that after the murder of my brother the accused have voluntarily gave the property of my father to me and my mother and grand-mother." In this suggestion that comes out of the bag and it becomes apparent that after the death of Jagar Singh, his elder brother while assuming the mental of the family had tried to usurp the property falling to the share of the deceased and to achieve this end had planned to eliminate Kuldeep Singh. It is in the light of this that we have to appraise the retraction of Bharpur Kaur and Gurjant Singh, who too are intimately connected with the family and may have been actually responsible for the settlement by which the widow, her daughter and the mother-in-law were not denied their share. It is in the light of this that we have to appraise the retraction of Bharpur Kaur and Gurjant Singh, who too are intimately connected with the family and may have been actually responsible for the settlement by which the widow, her daughter and the mother-in-law were not denied their share. Viewed in this perspective, the testimony of Amarjit Kaur assumes significance inasmuch as she states that when she first reached the house, she had found the appellants Balwant Singh and Harbans Singh armed with Kirpans and Malkiat Singh and Balwinder Singh armed with Gandasas sitting in the house of Natha Singh, who was empty handed. Thereafter, she along with Gurjant Singh PW2 and Nachhattar Singh had gone to purchase vegetables while Bharpur Kaur PW 1 and Vakil Singh had remained behind in the company of Kuldeep Singh. When the mother and her companions came back at about 10.30 A.M. she saw her son lying on the ground and gandasa blow being given by Balwinder Singh on the right leg of Kuldeep Singh, which was followed by another blow on the left wrist. In their presence, Malkiat Singh had given a gandasa blow from the blunt side on the abdomen of Kuldeep Singh and all the appellants had kicked him. No doubt, the testimony of Amarjit Kaur does not deal with the injury, which was found on the head of Kuldeep Singh, which injury, according to Bharpur Kaur, is attributed to an assailant, whom she refused to identify before the Court, however, in her statement before the police, she had attributed this injury to Harbans Singh and Balwant Singh. In view of this evidence, we are constrained to accept the version given by Amarjit Kaur regarding the presence of Balwant Singh and his sons and their having given injuries to Kuldeep Singh while he was laying on the ground. 13 This version of the actual incident and the role played by each of the appellants has got to be read along with what has been stated by Sukhjit Kaur PW8, who is niece of appellant Balwant Singh and cousin of appellants Balwinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Malkiat Singh. This witness has deposed in relation to two aspects (i) the conspiracy to kill and (ii) aftermath of the incident. This witness has deposed in relation to two aspects (i) the conspiracy to kill and (ii) aftermath of the incident. Sukhjit Kaur PW8, who had been living with the appellant Balwant Singh for over 1- 1/2 years after the death of her father, once her mother was sent to jail, has gone on record to asset that one day prior to 17.7.1998, she had overheard Balwant Singh talking to his sons that "Kuldeep Singh deceased had met SSP and there is possibility that he will come on the next day for taking possession of the house and land. Sons of Balwant Singh told Balwant Singh that since the property of Jaggar Singh is worth one crore rupees and they will not leave it at any cost even if they are to murder Kuldip Singh and whole of the estate of Jaggar Singh will remain with them. On the following day at about 10.00 a.m. she saw her uncle Balwant Singh armed with Kirpan, Harbans Singh armed with gandasa started towards the house of her father Jaggar Singh and they came back after about 30 to 45 minutes, armed with the same weapons with blood stains. The clothes of Balwant Singh and Malkiat Singh were also stained with blood. They changed the clothes and ran away but she do not know whether they had left the weapons in the house or not." This witness has been cross-examined at length and the defence was not able to make any dent in the testimony. The fact that she had been living with her uncle after the death of her father, is not denied and one would except that a girl, who in her early teens, has been deprived of protection of her parents on account of an incident in which her father was killed and her mother found herself arrayed as an accused and was offered succour by her fathers elder brother and had been living with him or 1-1/2 years, would make such a deposition only what was being stated by her was the truth that there is nothing on the record, which suggest that at the time when her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded, she knew about her brother having been killed. P.C. was recorded, she knew about her brother having been killed. Interestingly, no attempt is made by her to foist upon her uncle and her cousin the responsibility of killing Kuldeep Singh and she confines her testimony only to their having coe back with blood stained clothes and weapons, which they got rid of and ran away from the house. 14. The prosecution has brought on record evidence, which shows that during interrogation, the appellants had got discovered the weapons used by them in the incident and this fact enables the Court to draw an inference that these weapons, which were found to be stained with blood, are weapons, which were used by the appellants and with which they had assaulted Kuldeep Singh and caused fatal injuries. The evidence regarding conspiracy and the post conspiracy conduct as also discoveries effected from the appellants after their apprehension all go to prove the ocular version, which has been put forth in the testimony of Amarjit Kaur PW3 and enable us to uphold the conclusion arrived at the Court below that Balwant Singh and his two sons alone are responsible for the death of Kuldeep Singh. 15. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.