Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1119 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-05-14

MEHTAB S.GILL, NAWAB SINGH

body2007
Judgment Nawab Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Sukhwinder Singh accused- appellant against the judgment and order dated February 20, 1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Sukhwinder Singh accused-appellant and Jarnail Singh deceased were police constables posted in Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot. 3. On November 14, 1995 Jasper John Atwal, Assistant Sub Inspector (for short `ASI) (PW-9), Satpal Singh (PW-10), Bikkar Singh (PW-4), Sukhwinder Singh accused-appellant and Sanjay Maur Constable were present at the canal bridge Kotkapura Road, Faridkot holding a Naka. Jarnail Singh (since deceased) came and informed Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) that Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Faridkot had received a wireless message that Sukhwinder Singh accused-appellant and Bikkar Singh Constable (PW-4) were not present at the Naka. Japser John Atwal ASI (PW-9) told Jarnail Singh that both of them were present at the Naka. Jarnail Singh deceased asked Sukhwinder Singh accused- appellant that he was not discharging his duty properly and did not reach the Naka in time. Sukhwinder Singh started uttering abuses to Jarnail Singh. Sukhwinder Singh asked him that he was harassing him as he also got his duty changed from one Dr. Dalal. In the meantime, Sukhwinder Singh fired a shot from his service rifle, which hit Jarnail Singh in his abdomen. Jarnail Singh fell down. A lalkara was raised by Jasper John Atwal (PW-9) to apprehend Sukhwinder Singh accused-appellant, but he reloaded the rifle and threatened the police officials present at the spot that he would eliminate all of them in case any body dared to come near him. The accused-appellant along with the rifle fled away from the spot. Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) and other police officials brought Jarnail Singh to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot where he succumbed to his injuries at 8.50 p.m. on the same day. Harjinder Singh ASI (PW-5) was immediately informed by Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9). On receipt of the information, Harjinder Singh ASI (PW-5) reached GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. Harjinder Singh ASI (PW-5) was immediately informed by Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9). On receipt of the information, Harjinder Singh ASI (PW-5) reached GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. Statement (Exhibit PA) of Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) was recorded. Harjinder Singh ASI (PW-5) appended his endorsement (Exhibit PA-2) on the statement (Exhibit PA) and sent the same to Police Station. On the basis of the information sent by Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9), formal First Information Report (for short `FIR) (Exhibit PA-1) was recorded. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Accused-appellant was arrested by Lal Singh SI (PW-7) near the Barjindra College, Faridkot. The accused-appellant was interrogated on November 16, 1995 by Ajmer Singh SI (PW-15) and he made a disclosure statement (Exhibit PB) in the presence of Yudhister Singh ASI (PW- 1) and Gurtej Singh that he had kept concealed the rifle in the bushes near the canal bypass, Faridkot. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit PB), the accused-appellant led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the service rifle of 7.62 bore. The same was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PC). The articles viz. one live cartridge of the same bore, three cartridges of the same bore, blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, one fired cartridge and a parcel containing clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide seizure memorandums (Exhibits PG and PH) respectively. 4. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused- appellant was arraigned for trial. 5. Charge, in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 IPC, was framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses viz. Yudhister Singh ASI (PW-1), Sucha Ram Moharrir Head Constable (PW-2), Gurdarshan Singh LC (PW-3), Bikkar Singh (PW-4), Harjinder Singh ASI (PW-5), Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-6), Lal Singh SI (PW-7), Gurniek Singh (PW-8), Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9), Satpal LC (PW-10), Jagjit Singh Constable (PW- 11), Baldev Singh Head Constable, Jarnail Singh Constable (PW-13), Ranbir Singh Constable (PW-14), Ajmer Singh SI (PW-15) and Harbhajan Singh Constable (PW-16). 7. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.), the accused-appellant denied the allegations and pleaded that he was falsely implicated. 7. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.), the accused-appellant denied the allegations and pleaded that he was falsely implicated. He added that he had to fire shot at Jarnail Singh because Jarnail Singh was going to forcibly sodomize him. 8. In his defence, the accused-appellant examined Bikkar Singh (DW-1). 9. The occurrence took place at 8.10 p.m. FIR (Exhibit PA-1) was recorded at 9.45 p.m. on November 14, 1995. Meaning thereby, the FIR was recorded promptly without (with ?) the least of the delay. The author of the FIR (Exhibit PA-1) was Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9), who did not have any motive to implicate the accused-appellant falsely. His presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. Jarnail Singh deceased, Sukhwinder Singh accused-appellant, Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) and Satpal Constable (PW-10) were serving in Police Department and were present on duty at Naka held at the canal bridge, Kotkapur Road, Faridkot. It is of course for the prosecution to prove its case on the strength of evidence led. The accused-appellant is not required to prove his innocence. However, the statement made by the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a redundant thing. What the accused-appellant has pleaded in his statement by way of defence is that the deceased was a homosexual and a sodomist. He used to ask him for providing males, so that he could satisfy the lust by having unnatural sexual intercourse, that is sodomy. His statement further reads that on the date, time and place of the occurrence, deceased dragged him towards the bushes to sodomize him. The age of the deceased was 39 years and the accused-appellant was aged 23 years. Since both of them were recruited in the Police and were working as Policemen, they must have been able bodied persons meeting the standards regarding health, physique, height etc. It is ridiculous that the deceased could succeed in dragging the accused-appellant towards the bushes and that too in the presence of other Policemen viz. Bikkar Singh Constable (PW-4), Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9), Satpal Singh Constable (PW-10) and Sanjay Maur Constable at the Naka. To use one sentence, the defence put forth is not only absurd but ludicrous also. It is ridiculous that the deceased could succeed in dragging the accused-appellant towards the bushes and that too in the presence of other Policemen viz. Bikkar Singh Constable (PW-4), Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9), Satpal Singh Constable (PW-10) and Sanjay Maur Constable at the Naka. To use one sentence, the defence put forth is not only absurd but ludicrous also. Only one fact that was stated by the accused-appellant truly was that he fired a shot at Jarnail Singh, that is, frank admission as well. 10. This court would now advert to the prosecution evidence. Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) and Satpal Constable (PW-10) are the star witnesses. It has already been observed that both of them could have no motive for false implication of the accused-appellant. Their statements have been gone through in extenso. They have given a thorough narration of the manner in which the gruesome murder was committed by the accused-appellant of Jarnail Singh, who was a colleague. There was no possibility of any coloured version or any false witness being introduced in this case. The testimony of Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) and Satpal Constable (PW-10) is then free from any blemish. They have given a wholly spontaneous and convincing account of the occurrence. Despite cross-examination, their credibility could not be shaken and, therefore, there is not even remote reason why their testimony should not be relied upon implicitly. 11. The medical evidence is also there to corroborate the testimony of Jasper John Atwal ASI (PW-9) and Satpal Constable (PW-10). Both of them had stated that the accused-appellant fired a shot killing deceased from his service rifle. At the time of autopsy, three injuries found on the dead body, which have been described by Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-6) as under :- (1) An oval lacerated wound with inverted margins on the front of abdomen in the midline, 5 cms above the umbilicus measuring 2.5 cms x 1.5 cm. Abraded colour was present all around the wound. Clotted blood was present. (2) Circular lacerated wound with inverted margins 2 cms in diameter on the right side of back of abdomen, 4 cms right to midline and 16 cms above the natal cleft. Clotted blood was present. (3) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 0.5 cms on the medical side of left ring finger at its terminal phalanx. Underlying bone was fractured. Clotted blood was present. Clotted blood was present. (3) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 0.5 cms on the medical side of left ring finger at its terminal phalanx. Underlying bone was fractured. Clotted blood was present. There was blackening and tattooing was present on dorsal surface of all the four fingers of left hand except left thumb. 12. It has been clarified by the doctor that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 on dissection communicated with each other through anterior abdominal wall, soft tissue peritoneum and large intestine was lacerated. Faecal matter was scattered in the peritoneal cavity. It was further stated by him that injury No. 1 could be on account of injury No. 3 because after causing injury No. 3, bullet could enter injury No. 1 and injury No. 3 was caused from a close range. 13. The deceased was shot in the abdomen and vital organs were penetrated by the bullet. It is out and out a case of murder defined under Section 300 IPC and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It could not be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the case cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 304 IPC by any stretch of imagination. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has placed reliance on Ramkishan s/o Madhav Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra, 2007(1) RCR(Criminal) 614 : 2007(1) R.A.J. 450 (SC) in order to buttress his submission that the offence falls under Section 304 IPC. Authority referred has been perused. In that case, the weapon of offence used was axe and the injury was such, which was likely to cause death while in the present case, the deadly weapon, that is, service rifle was used and shot was fired in the vital area, that is, abdomen of the deceased, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, has no application. Learned trial Judge rightly held that Sukhwinder Singh accused-appellant committed the murder of Jarnail Singh. The evidence and circumstances were correctly marshaled by learned trial Judge in arriving at the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant and for convicting him of offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. What to talk of there being any illegality in the approach of the learned trial Judge, there is not even an aberration. The evidence and circumstances were correctly marshaled by learned trial Judge in arriving at the finding of guilt against the accused-appellant and for convicting him of offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. What to talk of there being any illegality in the approach of the learned trial Judge, there is not even an aberration. The accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, that is, the minimum punishment prescribed and, therefore, there is no scope for reduction of sentence either. The appeal is without merit and, therefore, it is dismissed.