Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 278 (PNJ)

Daljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2011-01-24

ARVIND KUMAR, HEMANT GUPTA

body2011
Judgment ARVIND KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.5.2001passed by the Sessions Judge,Ludhiana, whereby in case FIR No. 66 dated 12.8.1998 u/s 302/34 IPC, Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, while acquitting two accused, namely, Ram Singh and Baljit Singh of the charges, the accused-appellant, Daljit Singh, has been convicted under Section 302 IPC, for having committed the murder of Jasbir Singh @ Guddu, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-6) got recorded his statement to the police to the effect that on 11.8.1998, he along with his nephew Jasbir Singh @ Guddu (deceased) and his friend Baljit Sngh were proceeding from Doraha to village Jatana on the scooter of Baljit Singh. On reaching village Jatana, Baljit Singh got down from the scooter near his house and thereafter, both Kulwant Singh and Jasbir Singh @ Guddu proceeded towards their house in village Jatana on that scooter. At about 8.15 PM when they had crossed the drain near Gurdwara Ravi Darshan in village Jatana, he slowed down his scooter. At that time, accused Ram Singh and his two sons Baljit Singh and Daljit Singh came out of their house and stopped his scooter. Upon this, accused Ram Singh and his son Baljit Singh forcibly dragged Jasbir Singh @ Guddu from the scooter and caught hold of him and then Daljit Singh gave a Kirch blow hitting Jasbir Singh @ Guddu in the left side of the chest. On an alarm raised by Kulwant Singh and Jasbir Singh @ Guddu, two persons, namely, Pal Singh and Ujjagar Singh got attracted to the spot. Thereafter, all the three accused sped away along with their weapons in a Tata Sumo. Injured Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was then rushed to Civil Hospital, Samrala, but on reaching there, he was declared brought dead. On this statement of Kulwant Singh, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons. 3. ASI Bhupinder Singh who took up the investigation of the case, visited the spot and prepared site plan, Exhibit PW-11/A of the place of occurrence. 4. An inquest report on the dead body of Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was prepared vide Exhibit PD. 3. ASI Bhupinder Singh who took up the investigation of the case, visited the spot and prepared site plan, Exhibit PW-11/A of the place of occurrence. 4. An inquest report on the dead body of Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was prepared vide Exhibit PD. Pot-mortem examination on the dead-body was conducted. Accused were arrested followed by completion of other formalities. 5. Upon completion of investigation of the case, accused- appellant along with his two co-accused was challaned. After being produced in Court, they were charge-sheeted under Section 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. Manjit Singh, PW-2 Dr.Sanjay Kapoor, PW-3 Constable Sukhwinder Singh, PW-4 Constable Amarjit Singh, PW-5 HC Sukhwinder Singh, PW-6 Kulwant Singh, PW-7 HC Jaspal Singh, PW-8 Ujjagar Singh, PW-9 Pal Singh, PW-10 Ashok Kumar Draftsman and PW-11 ASI Bhupinder Singh (IO) and after tendering into evidence the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exhibit PZ, closed its evidence. 7. Thereafter, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and put incriminating evidence appearing against them to which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. All three of them took up the plea that at the relevant time, they were not present at the spot. Later on, when they came to know that Jasbir Singh @ Guddu had misbehaved in front of the house of Daljit Singh by singing obscene songs to which to which his mother Swaran Kaur and other ladies of the locality objected to. Thereupon, Jasbir Singh @ Guddu gave a Kirpan blow on the head of his mother due to which the people of the locality collected there and thereafter, in the scuffle which took place, Jasbir Singh @ Guddu received injury at the hands of some unidentified person. The accused then took Swarn Kaur to hospital and at that time, a demonstration was held outside the hospital by the complainant party due to which, Swaran Kaur could not be immediately medically examined; however, she was medically examined later on. The accused party gave the counter version to the police on the same night. However, later on, they were implicated in the present case falsely by giving a twist to the actual facts. In defence evidence, the accused examined Dr. Sanjay Kapoor as DW-1. 8. The accused party gave the counter version to the police on the same night. However, later on, they were implicated in the present case falsely by giving a twist to the actual facts. In defence evidence, the accused examined Dr. Sanjay Kapoor as DW-1. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment and order dated 7.5.2001 while acquitting two accused, namely, Ram Singh and Baljit Singh of the charges, held the accused Daljit Singh guilty and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal by him. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed including the names of actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye-witnesses, if any. In the present case, the time of occurrence is 8.15 PM. PW-6 Kulwant Singh (complainant) removed Jasbir Singh @ Guddu to hospital after covering a distance of about 11/12 kms where Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was declared brought dead. He along with Bagga Singh when proceeded towards the police station, ASI Bhupinder Singh met him in the way and he made statement at 12.10 AM on the same night and a formal FIR was recorded at 1.40 AM whereas the special report was in the hands of Ilaqa Magistrate at 4 AM on the same morning. The FIR is, thus, not delayed but rather prompt rules out every possibility of consultations and deliberations. The FIR contains the full narrative of the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the name of the accused-appellant along with the weapons used in the commission of crime. 11. The motive, as per the case of the prosecution, is that the deceased had cast votes in favour of the Congress party whereas the accused-appellant cast votes in favour of the Akali party and for this reason, there was grudge. According to the defence, this motive is not sufficient to commit the crime. 11. The motive, as per the case of the prosecution, is that the deceased had cast votes in favour of the Congress party whereas the accused-appellant cast votes in favour of the Akali party and for this reason, there was grudge. According to the defence, this motive is not sufficient to commit the crime. The contention is meritless for variety of reasons; firstly, the variation in human nature being so vast, murders are known to have been actuated by much lesser motive, and secondly, where direct evidence regarding commission of offence is worthy of credence and can be belied, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and not open to reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based upon this. 12. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of PW-6 Kulwant Singh who is also the uncle of the deceased. His statement has been questioned on account of being the sole witness and on account of relationship with the deceased. The corroboration in the statement of a solitary witness is not a rule of law but one of the caution as an assurance. It is not the quantum of the evidence but the quality of the credibility of the witness that lends assurance to the Court for acceptance. What is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of the evidence on which it relies. The evidence of a single witness may sustain sentence of death whereas host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support single charge of hurt. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved only by one witness nor it can be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by the other witnesses. 13. Conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable and consistent with the case of the prosecution. Similarly, relationship with the deceased itself cannot be said to be suffice to discard the statement. There is no absolute law that evidence of a relation witness is not entitled to any weight. Similarly, relationship with the deceased itself cannot be said to be suffice to discard the statement. There is no absolute law that evidence of a relation witness is not entitled to any weight. But this very circumstance would add to the value of their evidence because they would be interested in ensuring that the real culprits responsible for the murder are punished and not the innocent persons. PW-6 Kulwant Singh has given details of the occurrence that when he along with his nephew Jasbir Singh @ Guddu were going on a scooter and had reached near village Gurdwara named Ravi Darshan Gurdwara and had slowed down the same near a drain, then Ram Singh along with his sons, Daljit Singh and Baljit Singh came out of their house. Then Ram Singh and Baljit Singh (since acquitted) caught hold of Jasbir Singh @ Guddu and dragged him from the scooter, when accused Daljit Singh gave a Kirch blow to Jasbir Singh @ Guddu, hitting him on the left side of the chest. When he and Jasbir Singh @ Guddu raised an alarm, Pal Singh and Ujjagar Singh got attracted to the spot. Thereupon, all the three accused sped away in a Tata Sumo standing nearby. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and he stood firm to his stand and thus, the defence cannot extract anything which could discredit his testimony. His evidence further gets support from the statements of PW-8 Ujjagar Singh and PW-9 Pal Singh who got attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm and noticed the presence of Daljit Singh, the present accused- appellant, having a Kirch with him which was blood stained and on seeing them, they managed to escape and that both Ujjagar Singh and Pal Singh noticed that Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was having an injury on the left side of his chest and blood was oozing out of the same whereupon they tied a turn to stop the blood. The statements of PW-8 Ujjagar Singh and PW-9 Pal Singh are a natural consequence and there has been no over-act to pose themselves as eye-witnesses and in all fairness, they claim to have come to the spot on hearing the alarm, when Jasbir Singh @ Guddu had already been caused injuries by the accused-appellant and had only noticed the presence of the accused-appellant Daljit Singh along with a Kirch which, as observed earlier, was blood-stained. Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was removed to Civil Hospital, Samrala. PW-1 Dr.Manjit Singh Dhaliwal attended him at 9.45 PM. and by that time, Jasbir Singh @ Guddu had already died. Resultantly, he sent a Ruqa, Exhibit PA, to the police station in regard to the dead-body of Jasbir Singh having been brought by said Kulwant Singh and Pal Singh. 14. This further fortifies the presence of PW-6 Kulwant Singh and PW-9 Pal Singh at the spot as immediately they took Jasbir Singh @ Guddu to the Civil Hospital, Samrala, which is at a distance of about 11/12 kms. There are no reasons to disbelieve their statements. 15. Accused-appellant Daljit Singh was arrested on 17.8.1998 having been produced by Amrik Singh, Sarpanch. He in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered Kirch, Exhibit P-1. The said Kirch was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The report, Exhibit PZ, of the FSL indicates that it contained human blood. The said Kirch was also shown to Dr.Sanjay Kapoor who conducted the post-mortem examination. His opinion is that injury No.1 on the person of the deceased can be caused with said Kirch, Exhibit P-1. The medical evidence thus, supports the case of the prosecution. 16. The defence has laid much stress on the plea that Jasbir Singh @ Guddu was misbehaving in front of the house of accused-appellant Daljit Singh by singing obscene songs to which his mother Swaran Kaur and other ladies of the locality objected and at this, Jasbir Singh gave a Kirpan blow on the head of his mother and on account of that, the people of the locality collected there and thereafter, in the scuffle that took place, Jasbir Singh @ Guddu received injury at the hands of some unidentified person. This plea cannot be accepted for variety of reasons; firstly, to substantiate the said plea, Swaran Kaur has not been examined, and secondly, had any injury been given to Swaran Kaur, there was no reason for her to immediately get herself medically examined; rather she was medically examined on the next day and that too at 8.15 PM by Dr.Sanjay Kapoor. According to the said doctor, possibility of the said injury on the person of Swaran Kaur on the parietal region, being self-suffered/selfinflicted could not be ruled out. Thus, these facts give an indication that the defence is a concocted version. 17. According to the said doctor, possibility of the said injury on the person of Swaran Kaur on the parietal region, being self-suffered/selfinflicted could not be ruled out. Thus, these facts give an indication that the defence is a concocted version. 17. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has been able to adequately prove guilt against the accused-appellant beyond doubt and thus, the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence committed. No interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed.