Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1366 (PNJ)

Baj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-03-29

AJAI LAMBA, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2006
Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 5.4.2000 of the sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby he convicted Baj Singh son of joginder singh under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case is unfolded by the statement Ex. PD of sukhdev Singh, given to Gurdial Singh SI/sho, Police Station Sadar malout. Sukhdev Singh stated that he is a resident of village Malout and was working as a Punjab Home Guard (hereinafter called "p. H. G. ")volunteer at Police Station Sadar Malout. On 27.9.1990 he and h. C. /phg gurmit Singh, who was also posted at Police Station Sadar Malout, were going to meet Sukhdev Singh son of Jagraj Singh, resident of village alamwala, for the service of a written order. On reaching village alamwala, they came to know that Sukhdev Singh son of Jagraj singh had gone to village Ratta Khera. Thereafter Sukhdev Singh and Gurmit singh started for village Ratta Khera on a cycle. When they reached the village, two persons riding on a scooter passed by them. These two persons then turned back, after going a little distance. It was about 6.30 P. M. and when sukhdev Singh and Gurmit Singh reached near the culvert of Pacca khal of village Alamwala, the pillion rider of the scooter, who was aged about 20/21 years having a fair complexion and small beard fired a shot from his revolver. The shot hit the right cheek of Gurmit Singh, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the cycle. The cycle fell down. Sukhdev Singh ran away towards the cotton fields. The scooter was being driven by Baj Singh son of joginder Singh, resident of Ratta Khera, who was known to Sukhdev singh. Baj Singh was wearing a Siri Sahib (small kirpan ). After going a little distance, Gurmit Singh fell down in the pacca khal. Baj Singh came near gurmit Singh and inflicted kirpan blows, in his abdomen, while he had fallen down. Sukhdev Singh thereafter went to the Police Station and recorded his statement. On the basis of the statement, formal FIR ex. After going a little distance, Gurmit Singh fell down in the pacca khal. Baj Singh came near gurmit Singh and inflicted kirpan blows, in his abdomen, while he had fallen down. Sukhdev Singh thereafter went to the Police Station and recorded his statement. On the basis of the statement, formal FIR ex. PF was recorded on the same day at 7.55 P. M. Special report reached the sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout on 27.9.1990 at 9.30 P. M. Prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box amarjit Singh as PW1, Dr. Lakhbir Singh Sandhu as PW2, Sukhdev singh as PW3, H. C. Malkiat Singh as PW4, Gurdial Singh as PW5, Kulwant singh as PW6, Inspector Jaspal as PW7, DSP Raghbir Singh Chahal as pw8 and ASI Bhajan Singh as PW9. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the coaccused of the appellant was not arrested. It was the co-accused who had fired the fatal shot, allegedly on the deceased. Appellant could not have been convicted under Sec.302 IPC read with Sec.34 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that Sukhdev Singh along with the deceased had gone to village Alamwala to serve an order on one Sukhdev Singh. Copy of the order has not been placed on the file. The cycle being ridden by complainant Sukhdev Singh and deceased Gurmit Singh was not taken into possession. Neither was the scooter which was being allegedly driven by the appellant taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Dr. Lakhbir singh Sandhu PW2 in his testimony has stated that injury No.1 is of such a nature, that death would be spontaneous. It could not have been possible for the deceased to have gone running for some distance. As per site plan ex. PH, distance between Point A where the dead body was lying and point c where the scooter was lying is 40 karams. There was no motive for the appellant to have fired a shot at the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that there is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. Nothing has come on record that complainant sukhdev Singh PW3 was inimical towards the appellant. From the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased, coupled with the statement of the eye witness Sukhdev Singh PW3, the intention of the appellant was clear to finish the deceased. Nothing has come on record that complainant sukhdev Singh PW3 was inimical towards the appellant. From the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased, coupled with the statement of the eye witness Sukhdev Singh PW3, the intention of the appellant was clear to finish the deceased. Motive at times lies buried in the mind of the assailants, specially when appellant was declared proclaimed offender and arrested after six years. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Occurrence had taken place on 27.9.1990 at 6.30 P. M. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 8 kms. FIR Ex. PF was recorded on the same day at 7.55 P. M. and the special report reached the S. D. J. M. Malout on the same day at 9.30 P. M. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR and the special report reaching the magistrate. 5. This itself, goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. Complainant Sukhdev Singh PW3 has stated in his testimony before the court that when the shot hit the right cheek of Gurmit Singh, both of them, sukhdev Singh PW1 and deceased Gurmit Singh fell down and started running towards the cotton fields. On reaching the water course, gurmit singh fell down. Appellant then took out his Gatra/kirpan and stabbed the deceased. Appellant Baj Singh was identified by Sukhdev Singh complainant PW3 at the spot. His name has been mentioned in the fir ex. PF and he has also been identified in the Court by this witness. Sukhdev Singh has further stated in the FIR Ex. PF and statement before the court, that when he was running away and on turning back, he saw Baj singh giving injuries to Gurmit Singh in the stomach with the small kirpan. Complainant knew Baj Singh, as earlier he used to come to the police station. Nothing has come in the testimony of this witness as to whether he is inimical towards the appellant or he was friendly towards Gurmit singh deceased. Sukhdev Singh PW3 is an independent witness. His statement corroborates the FIR Ex. PF. It is in evidence that both the accused fled from the place of occurrence after inflicting injuries on Gurmit Singh. 6. Appellant was arrested on 11.1.1997 after a gap of about six years. Sukhdev Singh PW3 is an independent witness. His statement corroborates the FIR Ex. PF. It is in evidence that both the accused fled from the place of occurrence after inflicting injuries on Gurmit Singh. 6. Appellant was arrested on 11.1.1997 after a gap of about six years. He was interrogated by the Investigating Officer, but as a lot of time had elapsed, the scooter could not be recovered, nor could the Investigating Officer find out the motive of the commission of the offence. Grudge or grievance is always buried in the mind of the accused. It is not possible for the investigating Officer to investigate the motive aspect when the accused is arrested after a long time. Deceased Gurmit Singh was the only person who could have put light on this. Specific role has been attributed to the appellant in the FIR ex. PF and in the statement of the eye witness Sukhdev Singh PW3. 7. The person riding on the pillion seat of the scooter i. e. the appellant fired the fatal shot. After deceased Gurmit Singh and Sukhdev Singh PW3 fell down, it is thereafter that appellant took out his Gatra (kirpan) and stabbed gurmit singh in his abdomen. Injury No.2, which is an incised wound, is the wound inflicted by appellant Baj Singh. It is an incised wound 15 x 4 cms on the front of abdomen. Coils and small and large guts and mezantries were found out and about 5-6 feet of loop of gut were found flowing out and about 2 litres of blood mixed with fluid contents and feacal matter were seen in the peritonaeum cavity. The cause of death as spelt out by dr. Lakhbir Singh Sandhu PW2 was due to injury No.1, which was as a result of fire arm. Further, the doctor had opined that both the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the natural course of events. Injury No.2 was of such a severe nature that it also contributed in the death of Gurmit Singh. The doctor has opined that injury No.2 coupled with injury No.1 (a lacerated wound on the right cheek with everted black edges) was sufficient to cause death. Injury No.2 was of such a severe nature that it also contributed in the death of Gurmit Singh. The doctor has opined that injury No.2 coupled with injury No.1 (a lacerated wound on the right cheek with everted black edges) was sufficient to cause death. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC does not cut much ice, as injury No.2 also contributed to the death of Gurmit Singh. We convict appellant under Sec.302 IPC. Sentence shall remain the same as awarded by the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed.