Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 851 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh S/o Jagan Nath v. State Of Punjab

2005-08-10

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. Appellant Jagtar Singh has brought his appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 1, 2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he was convicted Sub-section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5.000.00 and further to undergo R. I. for two years in default of payment of fine. 2. In brief, the prosecution story, as described and divulged by the witnesses at the trial, is like this :- - On July 23, 1995, at 7 a.m. Nachhattar Singh (22 years) since deceased was going to the fields for answering call of nature in the area of village Moranwali. When he reached in the street near the house of Malkiat Singh, there he was heard raising an alarm "maarta maarta" -- (killed killed) by his father Phagga Singh and brother Kulwinder Singh, who were also coming behind to answer call of nature. Thereupon, they both rushed to the spot and saw that appellant-Jagtar Singh was stabbing with his knife (Ex. P4) on the person of Nachhattar Singh, who was lying on the ground. On seeing so, Phagga Singh (PW-6), father and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7), brother also raised an alarm "Na Maar" "Na Mar" (Dont Kill Don Kill). Thereupon, appellant Jagtar Sirigh fled away from the spot along with his knife. As a result of the injuries sustained on his head, chest and back at the hands of the appellant, Nachhattar Sirigh died at the spot. After this occurrence, Phagga Singh, who is a complainant in this case asked his son Kulwinder Singh to guard the dead body of his son and then he himself in the company of Chowkidar Jugraj Singh left for police station to lodge a report. Motive behind this occurrence was that , on the previous date i.e. July 22, 1995, Nachhattar Singh (deceased) and appellant Jagtar Singh had gone to graze their respective buffaloes and there they had some altercations and on account of that, the appellant was nourishing a grudge against the deceased. 3. Complainant Phagga Singh, who appeared in this case as PW-6, while he was on his way to the police station, met Inspector Baldev Singh (PW-8) at the bus stand of village Kaler at 9.30 a.m. where he made his statement (Ex. 3. Complainant Phagga Singh, who appeared in this case as PW-6, while he was on his way to the police station, met Inspector Baldev Singh (PW-8) at the bus stand of village Kaler at 9.30 a.m. where he made his statement (Ex. PH) in the above narration of facts, on which the Inspector made his endorsement Ex. PH/1, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. PH/2 was recorded by ASI Joginder Singh at 10 a.m. The special report in this case reached to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot at 11.15 a.m. on the same day. In this case, distance of police station Faridkot from the place of occurrence is that of 7-1 /2 miles. After registration of the FIR, investigation of this case was taken into hand by Inspector Baldev Singh (PW 8). He rushed to the place of occurrence. There he prepared the inquest report Ex. PG. Then he lifted blood stained earth from the spot and made the same into a sealed parcel which was taken into pos session vide recovery memo Ex. P1 attested by Phagga Singh (PW6) and Iqbal Singh ASI. From the spot, he also took into possession one pair of chappal and one empty dabba made of plastic which were converted into a sealed parcels and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PJ. At the spot, the Investigating Officer also prepared the rough site plan Ex. PN of the place of occurrence with his correct marginal notes in his hand. Dead body of the deceased was sent to Faridkot for post mortem examination, and the post-mortem report is Ex. PE. Thereafter, the house of the appellant was raided, but he was not found there. The appellant was arrested in this case on 25-7-199.5. Upon his interrogation by Inspector Baldev Singh (PW 8), he made disclosure statement Ex. PK in pursuance of which, he got recovered blood stained knife (Ex. P-4) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. Rough sketch of the said knife is Ex. PM which was prepared by the Investigation Officer at the place of recovery in the presence of Kulwinder Singh (PW 7) and ASI Iqbal Singh. On return to the police station the articles taken into possession were deposited in the police station with seals intact. PL. Rough sketch of the said knife is Ex. PM which was prepared by the Investigation Officer at the place of recovery in the presence of Kulwinder Singh (PW 7) and ASI Iqbal Singh. On return to the police station the articles taken into possession were deposited in the police station with seals intact. After completion of the investigation of this case, the appellant was challaned for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The appellant was charge sheeted Sub-section 302 of the I. P. C. for committing the murder of Nachhattar Singh deceased by the trial Court vide its order dated 10-11-1995, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, Nirbhai Singh Halqa Patwari (PW-1), he proved the scaled site plan Ex. PA; Head Constable Rajinder Pal (PW-2), he proved on the file his affidavit Ex. PB; Constable Sewak Singh (PW-3), he had taken the special report and in that behalf, he proved his affidavit Ex. PC; Constable Dalbir Singh (PW-4), he had taken, the sample and in that behalf, he proved his affidavit Ex. PD; Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW-5) Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical and Hospital, Amritsar, he had conducted the postmortem examination vide his report Ex. PE at 12.45 p.m. on the same date i.e. 23-7-1995; Phagga Singh (PW-6), he is the complainant in this case and father of the deceased Nachhattar Singh; Kulwinder Singh (PW-7), he is the brother of the deceased and Inspector Baldev Singh (PW-8), the Investigating Officer of this case. The role assigned to him has already been given while narrating the prosecution story. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PQ was also tendered into evidence, which proved human blood on the knife (Ex. P4) recovered from the appellant. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined in terms of Section 313, Cr. P. C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution levelled against him. When he was called upon to enter on his defence, Pandit Barjesh Parshad Narain Gour was examined as DW-1. He deposed with regard to the rising of Sun at 5.43 a.m. on the date of occurrence. 6. P. C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution levelled against him. When he was called upon to enter on his defence, Pandit Barjesh Parshad Narain Gour was examined as DW-1. He deposed with regard to the rising of Sun at 5.43 a.m. on the date of occurrence. 6. The learned trial Court after appraising the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant, as described in the earlier part of the judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record carefully. 8. At the first place, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in fact, the case in hand is a blind murder case, the occurrence of which according to him, had taken place in the night intervening July 22/23, 1995 and not at the date and time set up by the prosecution. In order to support his this point of argument, learned Counsel for. the appellant also made reference to the statement of Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW-5), wherein he stated that rigor mortis was present in the whole body except muscle of the toe. He further referred to the last version of the said doctor given in his cross-examination, wherein he stated that in this case, the possibility of death in the night intervening July 22/23, 1995 could not have been ruled out. 9. At the second place, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that presence of the star witnesses, namely Phagga Singh, complainant (PW-6) and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) at the spot, who were close relative of the deceased, is highly doubtful at the given time and place of the occurrence. In this regard, he submitted that had they been present near the place of occurrence, then they would have intervened and also sustained injuries at the hand of the appellant. 10. At the last leg of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the scaled site plan prepared by Nirbhai Singh, Halqa Patwari (PW-1) and then pointed out that there were adjoining houses of Malkiat Singh etc. near the place of occurrence, but none from them had witnessed the occurrence. 10. At the last leg of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the scaled site plan prepared by Nirbhai Singh, Halqa Patwari (PW-1) and then pointed out that there were adjoining houses of Malkiat Singh etc. near the place of occurrence, but none from them had witnessed the occurrence. Then, further pointing out the distance from point A to point DE and point C to point A, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that on the right side of the said scaled site plan Ex. PA, PW-1 has sown a crop of kanak (wheat) in khasra No. 1189 at the time of occurrence. In fact, there was no season of such a crop at the time of alleged occurrence. After putting the aforesaid points of arguments, he argued that all that shows that the Patwari (PW-1) had not prepared the scaled site plan at the spot. Before concluding his argument, learned Counsel also attacked the disclosure statement Ex. PK made Sub-section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in pursuance of which, the recovery of weapon i.e. Knife Ex. P-4 was got recovered, on the ground that the said disclosure statement was not signed/thumb marked by the appellant. In such a situation, learned Counsel contended for the acquittal of the appellant. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel also relied upon the following catena of judgments i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Punati Ramulu, 1994 (2) Rec Cri R 103 : (1993 Cri LJ 3684); Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur V/s. State of Karnataka, 1994 (1) Rec Cri R 571 : (1993 Cri LJ 1801) and Jackaran Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2345 : (1995 Cri LJ 3992). 11. On the other hand, Mr. A. S. Virk, learned Addl. A. G. appearing for the State of Punjab, repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and at the same time, he submitted that in this case, the FIR was lodged so promptly that there was no scope of involving the appellant falsely. At the second place, he submitted that there was a motive behind the occurrence and that fact established on the file also goes unrebutted in the cross examination of the material witnesses. At the second place, he submitted that there was a motive behind the occurrence and that fact established on the file also goes unrebutted in the cross examination of the material witnesses. It was--also then submitted that ocular version consisted in the statements of Phagga Singh complainant (PW-6) and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7), who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence also finds corroboration from the medical evidence. In the last, learned Addl. A. G. also made reference to 16 injuries on the vital parts of Nachhattar Singh deceased with knife Ex. P-4, which was got recovered by the appellant in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PK. After putting forward the aforesaid points of arguments, he then submitted for dismissal of this appeal. 12. Admittedly, in the instant case, the statement Ex. PH of Phagga Singh complainant (PW-6) was recorded by Inspector Baldev Singh (PW-8) within two and half hours of the occurrence and the Special Report was also received by the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate on the date of occurrence at 11.15 a.m. Formal FIR Ex. PH/2 containing all the details was recorded at 10.00 a.m. on the statement of complainant Phagga Singh (PW-6), who is the eye witness in this case. In spite of lengthy cross-examination made on the lodger of the FIR, nothing could be elicited, which could belie the prosecution story. In the FIR itself, the seat of injuries, the name and complete identity of the appellant, who is a co-villager of the complainant are contained. Not only that, the motive behind the occurrence was also mentioned. Thus, taking into account the aforesaid details incorporated in the FIR itself, it can safely be inferred that there was no scope with the police or the complainant for involving the appellant falsely in the instant case. No doubt, complainant Phagga Singh (PW-6) and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) are close relation to the deceased, but their presence at the given time and place is natural. According to Phagga Singh, complainant (PW-6) on the date of occurrence, at about 7.00 a.m., his son Nachhattar Singh deceased had gone to answer call of nature. At that time, he (Phagga Singh) (PW-6) and his son Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) were also going towards that side of the fields to answer the call of nature. When they reached near the house of Malkiat Singh, they heard voice of Nachhattar Singh "Maar Ditta, Maar Ditta". At that time, he (Phagga Singh) (PW-6) and his son Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) were also going towards that side of the fields to answer the call of nature. When they reached near the house of Malkiat Singh, they heard voice of Nachhattar Singh "Maar Ditta, Maar Ditta". Thereupon, they rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Nachhattar Singh lying on the ground having injuries on his chest, head and back side etc., as a result of which, he died at the spot. PW-6 further deposed with regard to the motive part of this case, wherein he stated that one day prior to the occurrence, his son Nachhattar Singh and the appellant had gone to graze their cattle and they had a quarrel with each other and that was the cause for murdering his son. Similarly, in his statement Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) also stated that on hearing the voice of his brother Nachhattar Singh, he and his father had gone near the place of occurrence and saw that appellant Jagtar Singh was giving knife blows to his brother. At that time, his brother Nachhattar Singh was lying on the ground and after causing the injuries, the appellant had run away from the spot. 13. Before we discuss the ocular version of the aforesaid witnesses, it would be proper here to reproduce detail of injuries on the person of Nachhattar Singh deceased as described in the post mortem report Ex. PE, conducted by Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW-5):- - 1. An incised wound 8 x 0.8 x 0.8 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the top of the head and was transversely placed. The underlying left parietal bone was cut fractured which measured 5 x 0.1 x 0.1 c.m. clotted blood was present at the site. 2. An incised wound obliquely placed 3 x 0.8 x 1 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the back of the head in its centre. 3. An incised wound obliquely placed 1.5 x 0.7 x 0.9 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the back of the head, 1.4 c.m. below injury No. 2. 4. An incised wound 1.4 x 0.8 x 7 c.m. was present on the front and right side of the chest in the right supra clavicular region, 3 cms. above the medial end of the clavical. 5. 4. An incised wound 1.4 x 0.8 x 7 c.m. was present on the front and right side of the chest in the right supra clavicular region, 3 cms. above the medial end of the clavical. 5. An incised wound obliquely placed 1.4 x 0.4 x 0.3 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the back and right side of the neck in its centre. 6. An incised wound obliquely placed 2 x 0.3 x 0.3 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the back and right side of the neck, 6 cms. below injury No. 5. 7. An oblique incised wound 1.4 x 0.7 x 0.5 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the front and centre of the chest. 8. An oblique incised wound 1.5 x 0.8 x 0.5 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of right hypochondrium. 9. An oblique incised wound 2.5 x 1 x 0.8 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of left hypochondrium. 10. An oblique incised wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.4 c.m. with clotted blood was present on back and the left side of the neck in its centre. 11. An oblique incised wound 2.5 x 1 x 0.7 c.m. with clotted blood was present on the back of the neck 6 c.m. below posterior hair lines. 12. An oblique incised wound 3 x 1.2 x 9 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of left supra scapular region. 13. An oblique incised wound 2 x 0.8 x 0.6 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of right supra scapular region. 14. An oblique incised wound 2 x 0.8 x 9.6 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of right scapular region. 15. An oblique incised wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.3 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of left inter scapular region. 16. An oblique incised wound 2 x 1.2 x 0.5 c.m. with clotted blood was present in the centre of left inter scapular region. 14. The Doctor has further opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was per formation of right lung, as a result of injury Nos. 4, 12 and 14, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 14. The Doctor has further opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was per formation of right lung, as a result of injury Nos. 4, 12 and 14, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediately and between death and post mortem within about 12 hours. It was also opined that all the in; juries on the person of the deceased could be caused by knife Ex. P-4. 15. A perusal of the medical evidence referred above goes a long way to corroborate the ocular version on all material points consisted in the statements of star witnesses i.e. Phagga Singh, complainant (PW-6) and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7), another eye witness of the occurrence. Inasmuch as, here in the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 a.m. on July 23, 1995 in the morning and the autopsy was conducted on the body of Nachhattar Singh deceased at 12.45 p.m. on the same day arid due to the injuries, death had taken place instantaneously. 16. In this view of our foregoing discussion and keeping in view the eye witnesses account, which inspires confidence, no sanctity can be attached to the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that there was also a rigor mortis on the whole body of the deceased at the time of conducting the autopsy or that it was a blind murder case. 17. Now adverting to the other points of arguments regarding unnatural behaviour of the material witnesses; in this regard, it has come in the statements of Phagga Singh (PW-6) and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) that on hearing the alarm of Nachhattar Singh, deceased, they had rushed to the place of occurrence. At that time, the appellant was seen giving stab blows with the knife on the person of Nachhattar Singh, who was lying on the ground. A perusal of the statements of the material witnesses shows that the appellant after causing the injuries had fled away within their sight before their reaching at the place of occurrence. In such a situation, there was no time left with the eye witnesses to intervene the occurrence. A perusal of the statements of the material witnesses shows that the appellant after causing the injuries had fled away within their sight before their reaching at the place of occurrence. In such a situation, there was no time left with the eye witnesses to intervene the occurrence. No doubt, in this case, some minor confrontations and contradictions have occurred in the cross examination of the material witnesses, but those do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Even otherwise, herein in the instant case, these witnesses were . examined after about five years of the occurrence and, therefore, such minor contradictions are bound to occur in the statements of truthful witnesses with the lapse of time. 18. Now adverting to the discrepancies pointed out regarding the disclosure statement, recovery part and the scaled site plan prepared by the Patwari; the occurrence of this case finished off within two minutes and Nachhattar Singh also died instantaneously at the spot due to the injuries. In such a situation, it was not possible by the inhabitants of the adjoining houses to reach and witness the occurrence. Therefore, non-joining of any such person from the locality hardly affects the prosecution case. A perusal of the disclosure statement Ex. PK made Sub-section 27 of the Evidence Act, goes a long way to show that the same was also thumb marked by the appellant as well as ASI Iqbal Singh and Kulwinder Singh (PW-7) and in-pursuance of his that statement, he got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex. P-4 from his house, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the disclosure statement was not thumb marked or signed by the appellant, is of no consequence. 19. P-4 from his house, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the disclosure statement was not thumb marked or signed by the appellant, is of no consequence. 19. A perusal of the above cited rulings indicates that in Punati Ramulus case (1993 Cri LJ 3684) (supra), the complaint was earlier lodged in Police Station which had no territorial jurisdiction and moreover, there was no corroborative evidence to the statement of alleged interested witnesses and therefore the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case In hand, inasmuch as here in the instant case, FIR was lodged promptly without any delay and testimony of the eye witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased also finds corroboration from the evidence and their link evidence, as discussed above. In Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganurs case (1993 Cri LJ 1801) (supra), behaviour of the eye witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence was found unnatural as the witness being wife had not tried to nurse the deceased or offer any help. Here in the instant case, the assailant had fled away from the spot within the sight of the eye witnesses. In Jackaran Singhs case (1995 Cri LJ 3992) (supra), the disclosure statement made by the accused was neither signed nor thumb marked, whereas in the instant case, the disclosure I statement, as discussed above, was duly I thumb marked by the appellant in the presence of the witnesses. Hence, the facts contained in the aforesaid three cited rulings by the learned Counsel for the appellants are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from the observations made therein by their Lordships. 20. We have also minutely seen the scaled site plan Ex. PA prepared by Nirbhai Singh Halqa Patwari (PW-1), and find nothing special for taking any favourable view in favour of the appellant. No doubt, in Khasra No. 1189, wheat crop was shown by the Patwari. Admittedly, there was no season of wheat crop in the days of occurrence. This factum appears to have been written by the Patwari (PW-1) under some mistaken belief. No doubt, in Khasra No. 1189, wheat crop was shown by the Patwari. Admittedly, there was no season of wheat crop in the days of occurrence. This factum appears to have been written by the Patwari (PW-1) under some mistaken belief. It is a matter of common knowledge that season of wheat crop in this part of the country comes to an end by the end of May. However, girdawari of wheat crop is incorporated invariably in the month of March/April and the next girdwari is incorporated in the revenue record in the month of October/November. In between the aforesaid period, the revenue officials generally show the same Crop in the fields, while preparing some map which was incorporated in the month of March/April, which is called a Rabi girdwari. However, in this regard, no explanation in the cross-examination of Nirbhai Singh Patwari (PW-1) has been sought on behalf of the appellant. In these given facts and circumstances, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from the aforesaid discrepancy in preparing the scaled site plan by the revenue Patwari. Even otherwise, from the eye witnesses account and from the sample of blood stained earth taken from the spot as well as recovery of Chappal and empty Dabba of the deceased, the place of occurrence is well established by the prosecution in this case. 21. In the premises aforesaid, we find no infirmity or illegality in any of the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 1, 2000. Hence, the same are hereby maintained. 22. In the result, this appeal bearing No. 180-DB of 2001 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.