Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 491 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-20

HEMANT GUPTA, JASWANT SINGH

body2010
Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 filed by Surjit singh and Criminal Appeal Nos.97-DB of 2002 and 114-DB of 2002 filed by Bal karan Singh, Jas Karan Singh and Labh Singh, against the order dated 10.12.2001 sentencing them for the culpable homicide of Rajinder Singh @ Raja son of sukhmander Singh, resident of village Mangat Ker. 2. Sikander Singh, uncle of deceased Rajinder singh @ Raja has lodged complaint Ex. PH/1 on 7.6.1996 at about 9.20 AM in respect of occurrence leading to the death of Rajinder Singh @ Raja at about 2.00 AM. He has stated that his son Sukhbir Singh and his nephew Rajinder Singh @ Raja had gone to motor in their field to irrigate Jantar crop (inferior quality of rice) at about 10.00 PM. At about 2.00 AM, he asked his son and nephew to bring a cot to sit at the motor, which is on the way. It was moon-light night. When they came out from the room of the motor with the cot and reached near the uncultivated small mound, 3-4 persons emerged out from behind the uncultivated small mound. He came running from his field, which is at a distance of 1 1/2 Killa and found that Bal Karan Singh and Jas Karan Singh @ jassa Singh sons of Raj Singh, are armed with gandassa and dang respectively, labh Singh armed with gandassa and Surjit Singh, resident of Village Mahuana, fazilka, armed with gandhali. Surjit Singh said that they would not be allowed to go, as his (Rajinder Singh @ Raja) father had become a witness in Eucalyptus trees case. Within his sight, they all started causing injuries with their respective weapons to his nephew Rajinder Singh @ Raja. His son Sukhbir Singh rushed towards him making noise. He also raised alarm. Thereafter, all the aforesaid four persons fled away with their respective weapons, after causing injuries to his nephew Rajinder Singh @ Raja. When he came near to the place of occurrence, he saw that injuries have been caused on the head and on the chin below the mouth of his nephew. He (Rajinder Singh @ Raja) breathed his last. After leaving his son Sukhbir Singh with the dead body, he came to the village and informed his brother Sukhmander Singh. Then both of them narrated the whole story of Manga Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. He (Rajinder Singh @ Raja) breathed his last. After leaving his son Sukhbir Singh with the dead body, he came to the village and informed his brother Sukhmander Singh. Then both of them narrated the whole story of Manga Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. Thereafter, he alongwith Manga Singh, had gone to the Police Station for lodging of the report. Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 3 On the basis of such statement, ruqa was sent by ASI Prem Singh for registration of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. In pursuance of such ruqa, FIR Ex. PH/2 was lodged at 9.45 AM. The special report was sent to the Magistrate at 11.30 AM. The inquest report is Ex. PJ. As per inquest report, the dead body was found in the fields near the motor, in the area of village Mangat Ker. The police also seized earth from the place of occurrence and also recovered weapons of offence from accused Bal Karan Singh, jas Karan Singh and Labh Singh, on the basis of their disclosure statements exs. PAA, PT and PS respectively. In pursuance of such disclosure statements, the gandassi was recovered on 20.6.1996 vide recovery memo Ex. PBB from Bal karan Singh. Dang was recovered on 19.6.1996 vide recovery memo Ex. PX from Jas karan Singh. Gandassa was recovered on 19.6.1996 vide recovery memo Ex. PV from labh Singh. All the aforesaid recoveries were effected in the presence of Kaur singh S/o Tara Singh and ASI Prem Singh. 3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Dr. R. K. Goria (PW-3), who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajinder singh @ Raja. As per his statement, injury Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are incised wounds and are simple in nature, whereas injury No.3 could be caused by fall. Injury Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 could be due to one weapon. Injury Nos.9 and 10 are on the back side and on the right side of the head. Injury Nos.8 and 9 are possible by fall. He has deposed that incised wounds on the dead body of rajinder Singh @ Raja could be caused by sharp side of gandassa as well as gandhali and lacerated wounds possibly could be caused by the blunt side of gandassa, gandhali and by dang. Injury Nos.8 and 9 are possible by fall. He has deposed that incised wounds on the dead body of rajinder Singh @ Raja could be caused by sharp side of gandassa as well as gandhali and lacerated wounds possibly could be caused by the blunt side of gandassa, gandhali and by dang. The prosecution has also examined Sikander singh, author of the FIR as PW-6 and his son Sukhbir Singh as (PW-7), in support of its case. PW-12 is SI Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 4 Prem Singh, investigating Officer, whereas PW-11 is Mukhtiar Singh, is the Officer, who has effected recoveries of the weapons of offence. After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, convicted all the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence rendered by the learned trial Court, the accused/appellants are in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has set up a motive of annoyance of the appellants on account of sukhmander Singh, father of the deceased Rajinder Singh @ Raja, being a witness in a case pertaining to illegal selling of Eucalyptus Trees. Relying upon the testimony of Inspector Gian Chand (PW-9), who has produced FIR (Ex. PR), it is contended that none of the appellants are the accused in the aforesaid case. Therefore, once the prosecution fails to prove the motive as propounded, the entire prosecution case must fall to the ground. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Brar, learned State counsel has controverted the aforesaid argument and pointed out that in fact grand- father of Bal Karan Singh namely Nazam Singh, is one of the accused in the FIR (Ex. PR ). Still further, a complaint was lodged by Sukhmander Singh on 4.6.1996 vide Ex. PW10/b to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot regarding apprehension from the accused. In the said complaint given three days before the incident, it is pointed out that the accused and their supports may cause loss to their person and property or may get false case registered. Thus, it is contended that the motive as propounded by the Crl. PW10/b to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot regarding apprehension from the accused. In the said complaint given three days before the incident, it is pointed out that the accused and their supports may cause loss to their person and property or may get false case registered. Thus, it is contended that the motive as propounded by the Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 5 prosecution stands sufficiently proved on record. It is contended that in any case, it is a case of direct eye-witness account, therefore, the motive pales into insignificance. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of motive, we find that the prosecution has proved the motive as propounded against Bal Karan Singh and Jas Karan Singh, whose grand-father was an accused of theft of Eucalyptus Trees, in which Sukhmander Singh is proved to be a witness. Sikander Singh (PW-6) has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that himself and Sukhmander singh are two brothers. Sukhmander Singh has two sons namely Rajinder Singh and shavinder Singh. He has further deposed that he, his two sons namely Sukhbir singh and Pargat Singh and his brother Sukhmander Singh are living in one house. He has also deposed that Sukhmander Singh has given an application in respect of illegal sale of Eucalyptus Trees by Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch. The fir (Ex. PR) is against Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch as well as Nazam Singh, grand-father of Bal Karan Singh and Jas Karan Singh. Similar is the statement of sukhbir Singh (PW-7 ). Thus, the motive as propounded by the prosecution is proved. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the statement of si Prem Singh (PW-12), has argued that water was flowing in the channel, when he visited the spot. He has reached at the spot at 11.00 AM. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution story that the water was available for the purposes of irrigation from 10.00 PM to 8.00 AM, is not correct, as water cannot remain flowing in the channel after the incident at about 2.00 AM and in any case after the supply of electricity is stopped. It is further argued that the presence of Sikander Singh (PW-6) and his son Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 6 sukhbir Singh (PW-7) at the site is not proved to be at the time of occurrence. It is further argued that the presence of Sikander Singh (PW-6) and his son Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 6 sukhbir Singh (PW-7) at the site is not proved to be at the time of occurrence. It is contended that since the witnesses alongwith the deceased are purportedly gone to the field for the purpose of irrigation, therefore, have to be possessed of spades (kahis), but there is no attempt by the aforesaid persons to save the deceased from the injury or to act in self- defence against the present accused/appellants. In cross-examination, Sukhbir Singh (PW-7) has deposed that the distance of the field, which was being irrigated was about 3 killas from the motor and is at a higher level than the motor. He has also admitted that spades (kahis) were there in the kotha and that no aid was given to the deceased because he was stood expired. He denied the suggestion that they had not gone to irrigate the fields. The witnesses have not acted as of persons of normal human prudence, so as to provide medical assistance to the injured and to remove him to the hospital. They have not taken any steps to provided even first- aid to the deceased. Therefore, it is contended that the witnesses are procured witnesses, who have not acted in the manner warranted of normal human behaviour and reaction in the event of injury to a close relative. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Though the witnesses and the deceased were in the field for the purpose of irrigation, but at the time of incident, the deceased or the witnesses were not actually involved in the process of irrigation. Sikander singh (PW-6) has called the deceased and his son to bring cot. Therefore, the possession of spades (kahis) at that time was not expected. The spade is expected only for the purpose of alignment of water channel. Sikander Singh (PW-6) and Sukhmander Singh are proved to be members of a joint family. The land is also owned jointly. The process of irrigation cannot be carried out by a single person and the assistance of Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 7 family members is required. Therefore, the presence of the witnesses for the purpose of irrigation in the middle of night is expected. Punjab is a deficient State in electricity. The land is also owned jointly. The process of irrigation cannot be carried out by a single person and the assistance of Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 7 family members is required. Therefore, the presence of the witnesses for the purpose of irrigation in the middle of night is expected. Punjab is a deficient State in electricity. The electricity is supplied on rotational basis particularly for the purposes of irrigation during the night hours. The argument that the deceased was not provided medical aid even though he was injured in the presence of the witnesses, is in the realm of conjectures. No doubt, a person tries to help his nears and dears and to provide medical assistance, but Rajinder singh @ Raja has died on account of injuries received. Therefore, he was not removed to a hospital, more than 20 kms away during the night. Therefore, mere fact that the witnesses have not removed the deceased from the place of occurrence for the purpose of treatment to the hospital, does not warrant any adverse inference. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that if Resham Singh, Lineman, who has been given by the Additional public Prosecutor, as not traceable, the prosecution could examine any other witness to support that the supply of electricity was for the period from 10.00 pm to 8.00 AM on the fateful night. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The statement of Sikander Singh (PW-6) that electric supply was from 10.00 PM to 8.00 AM is in cross-examination of the witness. Therefore, the fact that the electric supply was from 10.00 PM to 8.00 AM cannot be said cto be not proved by the prosecution. The eye- witness account given by the prosecution witnesses i. e. Sikander Singh (PW-6) and Sukhbir Singh (PW-7) is found to be reliable, trustworthy and is of normal human conduct. 7. The prosecution has been able to prove not only motive of the assailants, but also on the basis of eye-witness account, the prosecution has been able to connect the appellants with the crime. The learned trial Court Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 8 has appreciated the entire evidence in returning a finding of guilt against the appellants and we find on reappreciation of evidence that such finding does not suffer from any illegality. 8. The learned trial Court Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 8 has appreciated the entire evidence in returning a finding of guilt against the appellants and we find on reappreciation of evidence that such finding does not suffer from any illegality. 8. However, we find merit in the argument raised by Mr. Sangha in respect of allegations leveled against Surjit Singh. It is not explained that how Surjit Singh happens to be in village Mangat Ker, which is at a distance of 50-60 kms away from village Mahuana Bodla, of which he is resident. He is not proved to be related to any of the other accused persons. He is not found to be connected to Bal Karan Singh and Jas Karan Singh in any manner. He is said to be possessed of gandhali, but no such weapon has been recovered from him. Post-mortem report does not suggest any penetrating wound, which can be said to have been caused by gandhali. In the absence of any link of Surjit Singh with the other accused either by relation or otherwise and keeping in view the fact that he is a resident of village Mahuana Bodla, which is more than 50 kms away from the place of occurrence, his involvement in the commission of crime, is doubtful. Therefore, Surjit Singh is acquitted of all the charges framed against him, by granting benefit of doubt. 9. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 filed by Surjit singh is allowed, whereas Criminal Appeal Nos.97-DB of 2002 and 114-DB of 2002 filed by Bal Karan Singh, Jas Karan Singh and Labh Singh, are dismissed.