Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1742 (PNJ)

Mohan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-09-25

A.N.JINDAL, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 21.2.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby he convicted Mohan Singh son of Chuhar Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Rattan Singh Ex.PE given to Inspector Sant Singh of P.S.Dakha on 20.1.1994. Rattan Singh stated, that he has six daughters and one son namely Binder alias Baljinder Singh. His son had joined ITBP about 1-1/2 years back. He was posted at Bhangoo (Ambala) and had come to the village on one months leave. After the expiry of leave, he had to go back on 21.1.1994. On 21.1.1994 he came to Mullanpur Bazar to purchase household articles. At about 11 a.m. Rattan Singh along with his brother Prem Singh and Binder came from the village on a tempo. They got down at Mullanpur Bus Stand. Mohan Singh son of Chuhar Singh who was at the Bus Stop, shouted a lalkara, saying that today he would teach him (Binder) a lesson, for teasing his daughter. Binder tried to run, but fell down. When he was falling down, he was overpowered by Mohan Singh who started giving him blows with his knife. The occurrence was witnessed by both Rattan Singh and Prem Singh. Injuries were given on the naval, neck, chest, left hand, right wrist, thumb and left flank. Mohan Singh ran away. Both Rattan Singh and Prem Singh lifted Binder and put him in a car and brought him to New Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana. When they were getting Binder admitted in the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The cause of grudge is that, about 2- 1/2 years back, Binder had developed illicit relations with the daughter of Mohan Singh, but his daughter had died. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 was recorded on 20.1.1994 at 4.05 p.m. Special report was sent to the J.M.I.C., Ludhiana on 21.1.1994 at 6 p.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box SI Budh Ram PW-1, Gurminder Singh PW-2, Rattan Singh PW-3, Prem Singh PW-4, Dr.S.K.Sharma PW-5, HC Jagroop Singh PW-6, Dr.Prabhdeep S.Nain PW-7, D.S.P. Sant Singh PW-8 and Constable Lekh Ram PW-9. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box SI Budh Ram PW-1, Gurminder Singh PW-2, Rattan Singh PW-3, Prem Singh PW-4, Dr.S.K.Sharma PW-5, HC Jagroop Singh PW-6, Dr.Prabhdeep S.Nain PW-7, D.S.P. Sant Singh PW-8 and Constable Lekh Ram PW-9. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though it has come in the statement of the Investigating Officer Sant Singh PW-8 that at the place of occurrence there were shops, but no shopkeeper was examined. Neither the owner of the tempo, nor was any passenger on the tempo examined. 5. Dr.Prabhdeep S.Nain PW-7 has stated, that Nahar Singh DW-1 got admitted the deceased in D.M.C. Hospital, but he could not tell the history of injuries. In his statement, there is no mention of Rattan Singh PW-3 father of the deceased and Prem Singh uncle of the deceased. If they had seen the occurrence, they would have been the ones who would have got Binder admitted in the D.M.C. Hospital and also given some history of the injuries or the way the injuries had been inflicted. 6. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. Dr.S.K.Sharma PW-5 in his post-mortem report ExPH has stated that there are seven injuries on the person of the deceased, injuries No.1 to 4 being abrasions and injuries No.5 to 7 being incised wounds. This doctor has stated in his testimony before the Court that injuries No.5 to 7 could be caused with knife Ex.P1. Both Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 have stated in their testimony before the Court that seven knife blows were given by the appellant on different parts of the body of the deceased. Rattan Singh complainant has stated that when the appellant chased Binder Singh, Binder Singh fell down on the ground and it is thereafter that injuries were inflicted on him. In his testimony before the Court, Rattan Singh PW-3 has stated that appellant Mohan Singh took Binder Singh in his grip and it is thereafter that he inflicted the injuries. At that time deceased was still standing. This statement of Rattan Singh PW-3 is not corroborated by the statement given by him in F.I.R. Ex.PE, wherein he has stated that Binder fell down and it is thereafter appellant Mohan Singh gave him knife blows. 7. Both the eye-witnesses Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 were not present. At that time deceased was still standing. This statement of Rattan Singh PW-3 is not corroborated by the statement given by him in F.I.R. Ex.PE, wherein he has stated that Binder fell down and it is thereafter appellant Mohan Singh gave him knife blows. 7. Both the eye-witnesses Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 were not present. The presence of Nahar Singh DW-1 is not denied by the prosecution witnesses. Nahar Singh DW-1 has stated that he does not know as to who caused injuries to Binder Singh. Both Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 were later on called from their village and made eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 8. The motive for the commission of the offence does not appeal to the mind. It is alleged that the deceased had illicit relations with the daughter of the appellant. His daughter had died 2/3 years before the occurrence took place. Appellant would not have kept this grudge in his mind for 2/3 years, but if there was any grievance in his mind regarding the deceased having illicit relations with his daughter, he would have committed the murder of the deceased much earlier. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that there is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The occurrence had taken place at 11 a.m. on 20.1.1994. The F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 was recorded on 20.1.1994 at 4.05 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Ludhiana on the same day at 6 p.m. Both the eye- witnesses Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 being the father and uncle respectively of the deceased, would not have falsely implicated the appellant, and let the actual culprit go scot free for the murder of Binder Singh. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 11. Both the eye-witnesses Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 were not present when the occurrence had taken place. Nahar Singh DW-1 took injured Binder Singh to Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana. He was taken in a taxi. This has been amply proved by the post-mortem report and the statement of Dr.Prabhdeep S.Nain PW-7. He (PW-7) has stated that according to the record, Binder Singh deceased was admitted on 20.1.1994 and was brought there at 1.05 p.m. He was brought by Nahar Singh resident of Village Talwandi Kalan. Nahar Singh appeared in the witness-box as DW-1. This has been amply proved by the post-mortem report and the statement of Dr.Prabhdeep S.Nain PW-7. He (PW-7) has stated that according to the record, Binder Singh deceased was admitted on 20.1.1994 and was brought there at 1.05 p.m. He was brought by Nahar Singh resident of Village Talwandi Kalan. Nahar Singh appeared in the witness-box as DW-1. Dr.Prabhdeep S.Nain PW-7 has further stated, that the details of history of receiving injuries on the person of the deceased were not known to Nahar Singh. 12. Nahar Singh DW-1 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that he belongs to Village Talwandi Kalan. He brought the deceased to Dayanand Medical Hospital and got him admitted there. He identified Binder Singh who was lying in an injured condition when he saw some people gathered around him. He did not see deceased Binder Singhs father i.e. Rattan Singh PW-3 or deceaseds uncle Prem Singh PW-4. He in fact asked some persons standing there, to send a message to Rattan Singh PW-3 regarding the injuries which Binder Singh had received. 13. Both the eye-witnesses, Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4 in their testimony before the Court have stated, that appellant Mohan Singh gave knife blows to Binder Singh on his emblius, neck, right upper arm, chest, right flank, right hand and thumb. As per both these witnesses Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4, seven knife blow injuries were allegedly given by the appellant with knife Ex.P1. 14. Dr.S.K.Sharma PW-5 in his post-mortem report Ex.PH has stated that injuries No.1 to 4 are abrasions. Injuries No.5 to 7 are incised wounds. He has further stated that injuries No.5 to 7 could be caused by knife Ex.P1. If both these witnesses had seen the occurrence, they could not have faulted so seriously, by stating that seven knife blows were given on the person of the deceased. In fact, there are three knife blows which have been given and four are abrasions which as per the doctor, were not attributed to the knife Ex.P1. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. 15. Rattan Singh PW-3 has stated that he had told the doctor at the time of admission of his son that his son had been injured by Mohan Singh. This statement of Rattan Singh PW-3 is not corroborated by the medical evidence, nor by the notes, on the post-mortem report, Ex.PH. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. 15. Rattan Singh PW-3 has stated that he had told the doctor at the time of admission of his son that his son had been injured by Mohan Singh. This statement of Rattan Singh PW-3 is not corroborated by the medical evidence, nor by the notes, on the post-mortem report, Ex.PH. In fact, the doctor has categorically stated that Nahar Singh DW-1 who got the deceased admitted, did not know as to how the injuries were caused. 16. The motive for the commission of offence also does not seem to be probable. As per Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4, they heard the appellant raising a lalkara stating that he would teach the deceased a lesson for teasing his daughter. In their cross-examination, they have stated that the girl had died 2/3 years prior to the present occurrence. There was no need for the appellant to wait for 2/3 years to take revenge, if such an incident had taken place, revenge would have been taken much earlier. 17. Strangely no shopkeeper, the person who was driving the tempo, nor any passenger from the tempo were examined by the Investigating Agency, to come to the truth. We do not find any hesitation in concluding that the murder of Binder Singh alias Baljinder Singh was not witnessed by Rattan Singh PW-3 and Prem Singh PW-4. They are implanted witnesses. They were brought on to the scene at a later stage, after Binder Singh had been taken to Dayanand Hospital by Nahar Singh DW-1. Appeal of the appellant is allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. If in custody, appellant be set free forthwith, if not needed in any other case.