Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 3 (PNJ)

Major Singh And Anr. v. State Of Punjab

2007-01-08

ARVIND KUMAR, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
Judgment Mehtab S. Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17-4-1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby he convicted Major Singh son of Mahla Singh and Sukhmander Singh son of Gurnam Singh under Sections 302/307/ 449 read with Section 34 1PC. He further convicted the appellants under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo various terms under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under the different sections of the IPC. Smt. Paramjit Kaur complainant also filed Criminal Revision No. 520 of 1997 for awarding compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. which is also being disposed of vide this judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PM of Paramjit Kaur given on 27-1-1994 at 9.45 a. m. to ASI Ram Singh. She stated that she was married to Angrej Singh son of Alia Singh in 1982. She along with her husband resided at Prem Nagar, Kotkapura. Nachhattar Singh son of Alia Singh, the elder brother of her husband, resided in the fields after constructing the house in the year 1986. Angrej Singh, the husband of the complainant and his elder brother Nachhattar Singh had murdered Balwinder Singh, Sikander Singh and Jallandhar Singh sons of Mahla Singh, who were the sons of Taya (fathers elder brother) of Angrej Singh. Complainants husband and others were sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal had been filed in the Hon ble Supreme Court by Angrej Singh and Nachhattar Singh and both Angrej Singh and Nachhattar Singh were on bail as per the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. At about 8 a.m., Paramjit Kaur along with her husband and daughter Varanpreet Kaur aged 10 years and her mother-in-law Gain Kaur were present in their house. The door of the house was locked. There was a knock at the door and complainants husband Angrej Singh opened the door. Major Singh son of Mahla Singh armed with 315 bore rifle and Sukhmander Singh son of Gurnam Singh armed with a country made pistol came to their house. Major Singh raised a lalkara taunting Angrej Singh to run away if he could do so. otherwise they were going to teach him a lesson for committing the murder of their brothers. Major Singh son of Mahla Singh armed with 315 bore rifle and Sukhmander Singh son of Gurnam Singh armed with a country made pistol came to their house. Major Singh raised a lalkara taunting Angrej Singh to run away if he could do so. otherwise they were going to teach him a lesson for committing the murder of their brothers. At this, complainants mother-in-law Gain Kaur, her daughter Varanpreet Kaur stood up with folded hands, pleading with Major Singh not to kill Angrej Singh, as they were all relatives. Major Singh fired a shot from his rifle aiming it at her husband Angrej Singh, which hit him on his left biceps. Sukhmander Singh fired a shot from his country made pistol at Angrej Singh, which hit him on the left side of his chest. Major Singh fired another shot from his rifle aiming it at her husband, which hit him on his left buttock. Angrej Singh fell down on the ground. Paramjit Kaurs mother-in-law Gain Kaur fell upon Angrej Singh. Major Singh then fired another shot, which hit Gain Kaur on her back. Thereafter, Major Singh and Sukhmander Singh ran away. Angrej Singh died on the spot. While they were crying due to the death of Angrej Singh, Gurmit Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, the elder brother of her husband, came to the house weeping. He told them that Major Singh and Sukhmander Singh had injured his grand father Alia Singh and his father Nachhattar Singh with bullet injuries. Ram Singh, SHO Police Station City Kotkapura, who was on patrol duty, came to know that Angrej Singh had been murdered. He along with other police officials went to the house of Angrej Singh where he recorded the statement Ex. PM of Paramjit Kaur, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. PM/2 was recorded on 27-1-1994 at 9.45 a. m. The special report reached the J. M.I.C, Faridkot on the same day at 11.55 a. m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. J.R. Bansal SMO as PW1, Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu as PW2, Smt. Paramjit Kaur as PW3, Nachhattar Singh as PW4, Gurbachan Singh as PW5, Gursewak Singh as PW6, Natha Singh as PW 7, Dhansi Ram as PW8, Major Singh as PW9, Amritpal Singh as PW10, Bhupinder Singh as PW 11, Dr. J.R. Bansal SMO as PW1, Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu as PW2, Smt. Paramjit Kaur as PW3, Nachhattar Singh as PW4, Gurbachan Singh as PW5, Gursewak Singh as PW6, Natha Singh as PW 7, Dhansi Ram as PW8, Major Singh as PW9, Amritpal Singh as PW10, Bhupinder Singh as PW 11, Dr. R.S. Khurmi as PW 12 and ASI Ram Singh as PW13. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued, that Paramjit Kaur PW3 wife of deceased Angrej Singh was not present at the place of occurrence. She is an implanted witness. It has come in her statement, that she was blessed with two children just 4-5 months earlier to the occurrence. It is a custom in the families that when a child is to be born, the mother is usually at her parents house. The house of her parents was just half a kilometre away. No reason has come forward as to why Glan Kaur, the mother of the deceased who was allegedly injured in the occurrence, did not give her statement to the police so that a FIR could be recorded on the basis of her statement as she was an injured eye witness. Paramjit Kaur PW3 was deliberately brought to the scene at a later time, as she was an educated lady and was working as a teacher, to lodge the FIR. No DDR was recorded of the earlier occurrence in which Alia Singh had been murdered. It is strange that Paramjit Kaur PW3 has even given the bore of the weapons of the offence. 5. In the inquest report, the Investigating Officer found three wounds and had showed them and accordingly, the FIR was recorded. In the FIR, it is appellant Major Singh, who gave a rifle shot on the left biceps of deceased Angrej Singh. Sukhmander Singh allegedly gave pistol shot injury on the left side of chest of Angrej Singh and then appellant Major Singh gave another rifle shot injury on the buttock of Angrej Singh. Three injuries have been attributed. In the medical evidence of Dr. Sarabjit Singh PW2, only two injuries have been shown i.e. one on the buttock and the other on the chest. An improvement has been made in the statement of Paramjit Kaur PW3 when she came to the Court. She has taken away the chest injury on the person of Angrej Singh. In the medical evidence of Dr. Sarabjit Singh PW2, only two injuries have been shown i.e. one on the buttock and the other on the chest. An improvement has been made in the statement of Paramjit Kaur PW3 when she came to the Court. She has taken away the chest injury on the person of Angrej Singh. Statement given in the Court by her was to suit the medical evidence. The FIR Ex. PM/2 is inquest oriented. 6. There was no need for the appellants to come at 8.00 a.m., as these types of assaults usually take place in the night in the cover of darkness so that the assailants cannot be recognised. The presence of Nachhattar Singh PW4 is also doubtful, as he never stated to the police regarding the exit wounds. A lot of improvement has been made in his statement. Apart from Nachhattar Singh PW4, we do not have any other statement of any witness to corroborate his statement. No independent witness has come forward to state that the appellants went to the house of the deceased, nor anybody has stated, that they saw the appellants leaving the house of the deceased. 7. The FSL report Ex. PMM states that the bullets recovered from the body do not match the rifle Ex. P21. This itself is a glaring discrepancy. 8. Learned Counsel for the State has argued, that the prompt recording of the FIR and the special report reaching J. M.I.C. Faridkot, itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. Paramjit Kaur PW3 and Nachhattar Singh PW4 are natural witnesses. Occurrence had taken place at 8.00 a. m. in the morning. Paramjit Kaur PW3 having two small children of 4-5 months would have been in her house at that moment of time. Nachhattar Singh PW4 received serious injuries, which could not be self inflicted. The parents of Paramjit Kaur PW3 lived just half a kilometre away so there was no need for her to live in her parents house, as she could easily go to them in the time of need or call her parents. There was no need for recording of a DDR, as Paramjit Kaur PW3 has narrated the first incident, which had occurred Just half an hour before in the FIR Ex. PM/2. There was no need for recording of a DDR, as Paramjit Kaur PW3 has narrated the first incident, which had occurred Just half an hour before in the FIR Ex. PM/2. The seat of injuries could not be stated in a mechanical way, as at that moment of time Paramjit Kaur PW 3 was pleading for the life of her husband and Nachhattar Singh PW 4 who himself was injured, was trying to save his own life. The FSL report Ex. PMM shows that the empty cartrideges were fired from pistol Ex. PI8. The motive for the commission of offence is very strong. Appellants were on bail by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court and it is during the bail period that they attacked the complainants to take revenge. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 10. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 27-1-1994 at 8.00 a.m. Statement of Paramjit Kaur PW3 was recorded by ASI Ram Singh PW13 in her own house at 9.30 a.m. ASI Ram Singh PW13, the Investigating Officer who was on patrol duty, heard that an occurrence had taken place in the house of Angrej Singh. It is thereafter that he went to the house of the complainant. On the basis of statement Ex. PM of Paramjit Kaur, FIR Ex. PM/2 came into existence on 27-1-1994 at 9.45 a.m. in Police Station City Kotkapura and the special report reached the J.M. I. C, Faridkot on the same day at 11.55 a.m. The FIR is prompt. The name of the accused, weapon of offence and the nature of injuries inflicted have been categorically stated by Paramjit Kaur PW3 in FIR Ex. PM/2. This itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. 11. The motive for the commission of the offence was that in April, 1986 three brothers of appellant Major Singh were murdered and deceased Angrej Singh, Nachhattar Singh PW4, deceased Alia Singh and others were convicted for the murder of the three brothers of appellant Major Singh. In that case deceased Alia Singh was acquitted in December, 1992. Deceased Angrej Singh and Nachhattar Singh PW4 came on bail vide orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In that case deceased Alia Singh was acquitted in December, 1992. Deceased Angrej Singh and Nachhattar Singh PW4 came on bail vide orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court. There was a grudge in the mind of appellant Major Singh and he along with appellant Sukhmander Singh committed the murder of Angrej Singh and Alia Singh. 12. Paramjit Kaur PW3 and Nachhattar Singh PW 4 are natural witnesses. It is natural for Paramjit Kaur PW 3 to be present in the house at 8.00 a.m. in the morning, not only to look and see the early morning activities of the lady of the house, but she had two children of 4-5 months old to look after also. There was no need for her to go to her parents house, as the house of her parents was just half a kilometre away. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that she is an implanted witness and brought to the house of her husband after the occurrence, does not inspire confidence. She has been very categorical in her statement. When the rifle shots were being fired, it could not be expected of her to see and watch mechanically, where the two shots had hit Angrej Singh. It is afterwards when she saw three wounds not realising that one was an exit wound that she gave statement Ex. PM that three shots were fired by the appellants on her husband Angrej Singh. It was when she came into the witness box that she realized that only two shots were fired i.e., one hit on the buttock and other on the chest of Angrej Singh. This type of statement cannot be put into the category of improvement, as at that moment of time when the occurrence was taking place, she could not have concentrated as to where the injuries were being inflicted. 13. Nachhattar Singh PW 4 is a stamped witness. As per Dr. J.R. Bansal PW1, Nachhattar Singh had 8 injuries all being lacerated wounds on his person. Nachhattar Singh PW4 has been lucky to survive after such serious attack on him by the appellants. His presence cannot be doubted in any circumstance. 13. Nachhattar Singh PW 4 is a stamped witness. As per Dr. J.R. Bansal PW1, Nachhattar Singh had 8 injuries all being lacerated wounds on his person. Nachhattar Singh PW4 has been lucky to survive after such serious attack on him by the appellants. His presence cannot be doubted in any circumstance. Nachhattar Singh PW4 could not have looked towards what type of injuries were being inflicted on deceased Alia Singh, as at that moment of time when the occurrence had taken place, he was also being inflicted injuries and was trying to save himself. All he saw was that the appellants fired indiscriminately towards him and his father deceased Alia Singh. 14. There was no need for a DDR to be recorded of the first incident, which had taken place at 7.30 a.m. on the same day, as Pararnjit Kaur PW3 in her statement Ex. PM also stated, that Alia Singh, her father in-law, had also been murdered by the appellants as told to her by Gurmit Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, who came running to her house. The distance between the house of Gurmit Singh and that of Paramjit Kaur was not much. 15. Two defence witness DW1 and DW2 were brought into the witness box regarding a telegram, but nothing has-been brought on record to corroborate the statement of these witnesses. 16. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. 17. Criminal Appeal No. 433-DB of 1997 is dismissed. 18. Criminal Revision No. 520 of 1997 has no merit and is also dismissed.