Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1426 (PNJ)

Randhir Kumar v. State of Punjab

2011-07-21

A.N.JINDAL

body2011
JUDGMENT A.N.JINDAL, J. (1) THE accused/appellant (hereinafter referred as the accused) is alleged to have committed the murder of Raju resident of Jaura Pippal, Gali Darsondha Singh Wali, Amritsar, for which he was tried and vide judgment dated 9.04.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) RAJU deceased as well as Randhir Kumar alias Parohi were actually hailing from Uttar Pradesh. RAJU was residing at Gali Darsondha Singh Wali, Amritsar. On 9.3.2003 at about 8.20 a.m. the complainant Manmohan Singh alias Baba after returning from morning walk was taking tea on the tea stall the accused RAJU was also standing at the gate of Raj Cinema. In the meantime, accused came from the side of Chatiwind Chowk and on coming, he immediately started inflicting knife blows to RAJU deceased, on receipt of which the latter fell down just opposite the gate in front of Raj Cinema. On raising hue and cry the accused fled away towards Sakattri Bagh, whereupon, he was chased by the complainant as well as Des Raj alias Sain. However, they had been able to lay their hands on him with the help of Gurvail Singh and Bikramjit Singh, SPOs, who were present on duty at Chatiwind Chowk at that time. The accused was holding a knife which was snatched from him and he was brought at the place of occurrence where RAJU was found dead. Motive of occurrence as stated is that about 3 months earlier to the occurrence, deceased RAJU had given knife injuries to the accused. On the basis of the aforesatd statement of Manmohan Singh alias Baba Ex.PL, FIR Ex.PL/3 was recorded by ASl Jagdish Singh. Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased, prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence; recorded the statements of the witnesses and then dispatched the dead body for autopsy. Accused was arrested. The knife was taken into possession. On completion of investigation report under section 173 Cr.PC was submitted. (3) ON commitment, the accused was charged for an offence under section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused was arrested. The knife was taken into possession. On completion of investigation report under section 173 Cr.PC was submitted. (3) ON commitment, the accused was charged for an offence under section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (4) THE prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined Dr.R.K.Nadha (PW I), HC Kashmir Singh (PW 2), HC Parduman Kumar (PW 3), Rana Partap Singh (PW 4), Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW 5), Dr.Gursewak Singh (PW6), Manmohan Singh (PW 7), Des Raj (PW 8), Deepak Kumar (PW 9), Inspector Baldev Singh (PW10), Mela Ram (PW II) and Constable Remesh Kumar (PW12). After tendering the report of FSL Ex.PS, the prosecution closed its evidence. When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in this case. However, he led no evidence in defence. (5) TRIAL resulted into conviction. (6) ARGUMENTS heard. Record perused. Amongst multiple contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, one is regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and sending the said report late to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Having considered the contention, the same is found to be without any basis. The occurrence took place at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning. Statement Ex.PL of Manmohan Singh was recorded by SI Baldev Singh. On the same day, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PL/3 was recorded at 9,30 a.m. by ASI Jagjit Singh. Recording of FIR was started at 9.40 a.m. and completed at 10.30 a.m.. Special report was received by Judicial Magistrate First Class, on the same day at 2 p.m. (7) CIRCUMSTANCES transpire that no time was wasted in recording the FIR as some time must have been taken in chasing the accused and bringing him to the place of occurrence; calling the police officer and he must have taken some time in recording the FIR. As regards the receipt of special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate, it may be observed that it reached the Ilaqa Magistrate within four hours. It is a matter of common experience that some time the Duty Magistrates are not available on account of leave or otherwise. As regards the receipt of special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate, it may be observed that it reached the Ilaqa Magistrate within four hours. It is a matter of common experience that some time the Duty Magistrates are not available on account of leave or otherwise. Some times they are busy and the police officials take some time to have an access to him/her, as such in view of the consistent testimonies of two independent witnesses namely Manmohan Singh PW 7 and Des Raj PW 8 late receipt of the special report by the IIlaqa Magistrate assumes insignificance, particularly when there are no chances of false implication as both the witnesses had no animus or enmity against the accused for falsely implicating him in the case and also that the accused was arrested at the spot and weapon of offence was recovered from him and was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PM/1. (8) THE other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the doubtful presence of two witnesses at the spot is also without any merit. PW 7 Manmohan Singh in the natural course of events has come out with a truthful version that it was morning time and he had returned from his morning walk and was standing at a tea stall near Raj Cinema to take tea where Des Raj was also present with him as well as the accused, Witness has specifically stated that they knew Raju deceased since earlier. Similarly, Des Raj PW has corroborated the testimony of Manmohan Singh while saying that on the day of occurrence at about 8.20 a.m. he had arrived at the Tea Stall when the former was already present, the accused came there and started causing knife injuries to him. It is a matter of common experience that normally the people from poor strata, after morning walk, relax by making a halt at tea stalls for a cup of tea. It is usual life style of the people in this part of the country as such it was most probable for Manmohan Singh and Des Raj to be present at the place of occurrence before they could start their routine business. As such their presence at the tea stall at the time of occurrence cannot be said to be chance one. Rather it was quite natural. As such their presence at the tea stall at the time of occurrence cannot be said to be chance one. Rather it was quite natural. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length but their credibility could not be shattered to make their presence doubtful at the tea stall. (9) THE learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that both the witnesses have not uttered a word about the motive, therefore, the case becomes doubtful. (10) WHILE taking into consideration all the circumstances it may be observed that the witnesses could not be expected to know about the motive for causing of injuries by the accused to the deceased as both of them hailed from Uttar Pradesh and they had no close acquaintance with them, however, they in the ordinary course of nature, depicted whatever was seen by them. Even otherwise, absence of motive cannot be said to be a circumstance against the prosecution. Motive is such an element which remains hidden in the mind of the accused and some times it is very difficult to explore. In this case, either the deceased or the accused knew about the motive. Deceased is no more to explain and the accused had liberty to withhold it for the sake to defend himself. It has also been seen that some times the occurrence is committed for little or no motive. Since the occurrence which took place in the presence of the witness during the day time and there was no question of mistaken identity. Furthermore, immediately after the occurrence, both the witnesses followed the accused to catch him and he was caught with the help of the two other persons; knife was recovered from him and was handed over to the police which was taken into possession by SI Baldev Singh vide recovery memo Ex.PM/1 and FSL report Ex.PS further corroborates the fact that knife so recovered from the accused was found to be stained with human blood. Under such circumstances proof of motive looses significance. (11) FURTHER evidence which corroborates the prosecution case is that the accused was arrested at the spot. He was medico legally examined on that very day at 3 p.m. by Dr.Gursewak Singh, EMO, Civil Hospital, Amritsar. Injuries on his person indicate about somewhat thrashing by the witnesses by reacting to the occurrence. Under such circumstances proof of motive looses significance. (11) FURTHER evidence which corroborates the prosecution case is that the accused was arrested at the spot. He was medico legally examined on that very day at 3 p.m. by Dr.Gursewak Singh, EMO, Civil Hospital, Amritsar. Injuries on his person indicate about somewhat thrashing by the witnesses by reacting to the occurrence. Accused has said nothing about the injuries which he suffered at the time of occurrence. Medical evidence viz. autopsy conducted by Dr. R. K. Nadha, PW 1 also corroborates the prosecution version. Dr.Nadha PW 1 found seven injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and could be caused with the Chhuri (knife) so recovered from the accused. Post-mortem was conducted on the same day. At the same time doctor has also opined that time elapsed between the injury and death was immediate and probable time between death and postmortem examination was about 5 to 7 hours which also synchronises with the time of suffering injuries by the deceased. (12) THE accused has not set up any defence plea except stating that the case was false. No evidence has been led to prove his innocence. As regards the quantum of sentence, the trial Court in all its wisdom has awarded minimum sentence as such, there is no scope for leniency. (13) ON analysis of the entire evidence on the record, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment is well reasoned, based on appreciation of evidence in right perspective and does not call for interference by this court. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.