Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 377 (PNJ)

Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-02-11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2008
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.:- This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.468-DB of 1998 filed by Gurmej Singh and Criminal Appeal No.51-DB of 1999 filed by Boota Singh. 2. Case of the prosecution is that Gurmel Singh deceased was working in Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala. He was on leave and had come to his Village Haraj. On 2.11.1992 at 11-15 P.M., he was sleeping in his house with other members of the family. The house was in the fields. His neighbour Balwinder Singh PW-4 gave a call to him in the night. He told him that two miscreants came and caught hold of him and threatened him. One of them was having a weapon like gun. However, they went away. Gurmel alongwith his father Vir Singh PW-11 and Mukhtiar Singh, who was also his neighbour, went to the house of Balwinder Singh. His wife Darshan Kaur PW-5 disclosed that the accused were compelling her to accompany them. She, however, managed to escape on the pretext of going for urination. She further disclosed that she identified one of the two accused to be Buta Singh, who belonged to the same village. The complainant party proceeded to the house of Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch PW-7. On the way, the accused were standing. Companion of Buta Singh was having gun. The complainant party asked them about their identity. The accused straightened the weapon in their possession to fire but could not fire. Vir Singh remarked that the weapon was fake. They tried to escape. Balwinder Singh and Vir Singh caught hold of Buta Singh. Other members of the complainant party chased the other assailant. Gurmel Singh tried to catch hold of other accused who fired a shot which hit Gurmel Singh. He raised alarm. Buta Singh also managed to escape. Gurmel Singh fell down. He was taken to the hospital, where he was examined and his statement was recorded by SI Baldev Singh PW-17. Gurmel Singh was referred to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. He was admitted there on 4.11.1992 at 9-15 A.M. and he died on 8.11.1992. ASI Sajjan Singh PW-16 prepared the inquest report and sent a request for post-mortem examination of the dead body. PW-1 Dr. Kulwant Singh conducted the post-mortem examination and found the cause of death to be septicaemia as a result of injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ASI Sajjan Singh PW-16 prepared the inquest report and sent a request for post-mortem examination of the dead body. PW-1 Dr. Kulwant Singh conducted the post-mortem examination and found the cause of death to be septicaemia as a result of injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. SI Baldev Singh PW-17 took the clothes of deceased in his possession and after completing investigation, put up the final report. 3. The prosecution examined Dr. Kulwant Singh PW-1, Thomas Jeorge PW-2, Dr. M.M.S. Dhillon PW-3, Balwinder Singh PW- 4, Darshan Kaur PW-5, Kesar Singh PW-6, Mohinder Singh PW-7, Constable Joginder Singh PW-8, ASI Gurmohan Singh PW-9, HC Baldev Singh PW-10, Vir Singh PW-11, Sunder Singh PW-12, Constable Baldev Singh PW-13, Constable Dalbir Singh PW-14, Constable Ram Parkash PW-15, ASI Sajjan Singh PW-16, SI Baldev Singh PW-17, HC Harbhajan Singh PW-18, HC Satnam Singh PW-19, E. Rai Singh PW-20 and Constable Om Parkash PW-21. 4. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Gurmej Singh stated that he was arrested prior to the occurrence. Buta Singh stated that he was implicated on account of party faction. 5. The trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be fully proved in view of testimony of Balwinder Singh PW-4 corroborating the version of Gurmel Singh, on the basis of which FIR was registered. There was further corroborating evidence of PW-5 Darshan Kaur and Vir Singh PW-11. PW-6 Kesar Singh and PW-7 Mohinder Singh also corroborated the said version. According to report Ex.PAA of the FSL, cartridges in question were fired from 9 mm carbine No.15210920 recovered from the accused Gurmej Singh who was employed as Constable in Police Station Zira. Gurmej Singh was found absent from his duty on November 2, 1992. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for Gurmej Singh, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No.468-DB of 1998, stated that Gurmej Singh died during pendency of the appeal. Thus, appeal qua him, is dismissed as abated. 8. Learned counsel for Buta Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.51-DB of 1999 submitted that he was not attributed any motive and the gun did not belong to him. He had not fired any shot nor any weapon was recovered from him. He did not share common intention for the murder. 9. Thus, appeal qua him, is dismissed as abated. 8. Learned counsel for Buta Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.51-DB of 1999 submitted that he was not attributed any motive and the gun did not belong to him. He had not fired any shot nor any weapon was recovered from him. He did not share common intention for the murder. 9. We find that according to the version of the prosecution, shot was fired by Gurmej Singh and gun was also with him. Evidence about Buta Singh’s sharing common intention of causing death of Gurmel Singh, is not free from doubt. Shot was fired by Gurmej Singh when the accused and the deceased were grappling with each other when Gurmel Singh tried to catch hold of Gurmej Singh who was trying to run away. 10. In view of above, we are of the view that Buta Singh, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal of Gurmel Singh as abated, the appeal filed by Buta Singh is allowed. While giving him benefit of doubt, he is acquitted. ———————