Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1233 (PNJ)

Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-09-18

JASBIR SINGH, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - We are disposing of CRA-D-466-DB of 2007 filed by appellant-accused Gurdip Singh, CRA-D-968-DB of 2007 filed by appellants-accused Tehal Singh and Darshan Singh against their conviction and sentence and CRR-631 of 2008 filed by Achhar Singh as all the three cases have arisen from order of the Trial Court dated 16.08.2007/17.08.2007. 2. The appellants-accused, referred to in the appeals, were convicted on 16.08.2007 for offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”] and vide order dated 17.08.2007, sentenced as under:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the convict and the section Sentence imposed under he is sentenced ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Gurdip Singh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under Section 302 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for two months. Under Section 302/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for one month. Under Section 201/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for one month. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the convict and the section Sentence imposed under he is sentenced ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Convicts Darshan Singh & Tehal Singh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under Section 302/34 PC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for one month each. Under Section 302/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for one month each. Under Section 201/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for one month each. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of detention during investigation and trial was ordered to be set off against substantive sentences of the appellants-accused. 4. In this case, two persons, namely, Mohan Singh S/o Natha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh S/o Achhar Singh have lost their lives. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of detention during investigation and trial was ordered to be set off against substantive sentences of the appellants-accused. 4. In this case, two persons, namely, Mohan Singh S/o Natha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh S/o Achhar Singh have lost their lives. The law was set into motion by Rajwant Singh S/o Mohan Singh (PW2) by recording his statement (Ex.PK) with SI Gurnam Singh (PW5) on 18.06.2003, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PK/2) was registered on the same day. 5. In the FIR, it was stated by PW2 that he was serving as a Private Teacher in Saraswati Model School, Bhopar Saidan. On 18.06.2003, at about 6.15 P.M., when he along with his father Mohan Singh S/o Natha Singh and his uncle’s son Lakhwinder Singh S/o Achhar Singh, resident of Purowal Aryian, after preparing their fields for sowing paddy crop, were building embankment (Banna), Rattan Singh S/o Karnail Singh armed with datar, Gurdip Singh alias Kaka armed with datar, Tehal Singh S/o Hira Singh armed with sword, Darshan Singh S/o Hira Singh armed with sword, residents of village Purowal Aryian, along with three other persons, who were also armed with datars and Kirpans, came there. Rattan Singh exhorted for teaching a lesson to the complainant party for firing a shot and gave a datar blow to Mohan Singh on his left arm. Second blow was given on his father’s left knee. He ran away from there out of fear and after about 20-25 Karams, turned back and saw that Rattan Singh gave a datar blow on the neck his father Mohan Singh and the neck was cut off and separated from the body. Gurdip Singh gave a datar blow on the left wrist of Lakhwinder Singh and Tehal Singh also gave a sword blow on the right wrist of Lakhwinder Singh. Gurdip Singh alias Kaka gave a datar blow to Lakhwinder Singh on his neck which was cut off from his body. Darshan Singh and all other accused with an intention to kill him, ran after him along with their respective weapons, but he ran towards the village and raised hue and cry, on which his uncles Achhar Singh and Karnail Singh came there who had also seen the occurrence. Darshan Singh and all other accused with an intention to kill him, ran after him along with their respective weapons, but he ran towards the village and raised hue and cry, on which his uncles Achhar Singh and Karnail Singh came there who had also seen the occurrence. In the meantime, the accused took away the heads of Mohan Singh and Lakhwinder Singh by putting them in a jute bag (bori) and ran away from the scene of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is that about 2- ½ years ago, Rattan Singh party had a quarrel with the complainant party and both the parties had received the injuries and a case is pending in the Court in that regard. 6. SI Gurmej Singh (PW10) reached the place of occurrence and prepared inquest reports (Ex.PC & Ex.PG) and vide letters (Ex.PB and Ex.PF) sent the dead bodies of Mohan Singh and Lakhwinder Singh for post mortem through HC Mohan Lal (PW8). He lifted blood stained earth from the place where the dead bodies were lying and taken it into possession vide memos (Ex.PJ & Ex.PK). Rough site plan (Ex.PT) was prepared. The post mortem was conducted on both the dead bodies by Dr. Sudhir Kumar (PW11) on 19.06.2003 and following injuries were found on the dead body of Mohan Singh S/o Natha Singh:- “1. Injury was 5 cm above the route of the neck having clear cut margins with the following tissue and organ cut at this injury level: Skin subcutaneous tissue, muscle, air passages, Oesphagus, major and minor blood vessels, nerves, vertebrae column and spinal cord. 2. An incised wound 5 x 2 cm on the back and posterior side of left fore arm on its lower half, on dissection the underlying skin and the muscles were cut. 3. An incised wound of 8 x 3 cm on the outside of left shoulder joint. On dissection the underlying skin was cut. 4. An incised wound 4 x 1 cm on the anterior side of left knee joint. On dissection the underlying skin was cut and patella of knee joint was fractured.” 7. The cause of death was given as shock and hemorrhage with injury No.1. Following injuries were found on the dead body of Lakhwinder Singh S/o Achhar Singh:- “1. 4. An incised wound 4 x 1 cm on the anterior side of left knee joint. On dissection the underlying skin was cut and patella of knee joint was fractured.” 7. The cause of death was given as shock and hemorrhage with injury No.1. Following injuries were found on the dead body of Lakhwinder Singh S/o Achhar Singh:- “1. The injury is 5.5 cm above the route of the neck having a clean cut margin with the following tissues and the organs were cut at this injury level: Skin subcutaneous tissue, muscles, air passages, Oesophagus major and minor blood vessels, nerves, vertebrae column and spinal cord. 2. An incised wound 12 x 2 cm on the anterior and posterior side of left hand at the base of four fingers with the tag of skin uniting the finger with the palm of the hand, on dissection the underlying bond of the palm was fractured. 3. An incised wound 6 x 1.5 cm on the outer side of right side palm. On dissection the underlying muscle, blood vessels and the bones of the outer side of the palm were fractured.” 8. In this case also, the cause of death was given as shock and hemorrhage with injury No.1. PW11 proved his reports (Ex.PEE & Ex.PFF). 9. It would be relevant to mention here that Rattan Singh, co-accused, was declared proclaimed offender who did not face the trial. 10. After the post mortem, the clothes of the deceased Lakhwinder Singh were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PO after converting it into parcel Ex.MO/3 and that of Mohan Singh Ex.MO/4 was taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PP. On 20.06.2003, Darshan Singh and Tehal Singh were arrested who got recovered their Kirpans on 22.06.2003, whereas Gurdip Singh, who suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PQ) got recovered his datar. 11. The prosecution examined Dr. Sudhir Kumar (PW1), Rajwant Singh (PW2), Karnail Singh (PW3), Const. Hardip Singh (PW4), SI Gurnam Singh (PW5), Partap Singh Patwari (PW6), PHC Rachhpal Singh (PW7), HC Mohan Lal (PW8), LC Jaspal Singh (PW9) and SI Gurmej Singh (PW10). Dr. Sudhir Kumar (PW1) was examined as PW11 after the amendment of charge. 12. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, statement of the appellants-accused were recorded separately under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] and all the incriminating material was put to them. Dr. Sudhir Kumar (PW1) was examined as PW11 after the amendment of charge. 12. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, statement of the appellants-accused were recorded separately under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] and all the incriminating material was put to them. They denied their involvement in the commission of crime and pleaded their innocence. Tehal Singh pleaded that he is 83 years of age and is not a resident of village Purowal Arriyan but he is resident of village Qadianwali in a Dera at a distance of 4/5 Kms. Away from village Purowal Ariyan. He never participated in any occurrence, nor caused any injury to anyone, never made any disclosure statement and no recovery was effected from him. However, no defence evidence has been led by the appellants-accused. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that it is a case where the occurrence has been witnessed by no-one as it took place at 6.15 p.m. where the police reached within 7-8 minutes, but the statement of the complainant was recorded at 8.35 p.m. Since the delay has not been explained, therefore, the benefit should have been given to the appellants-accused as the story has been concocted and manipulated by the prosecution. It is further argued that in the inquest reports (Ex.PC & Ex.PG) of both the deceased, the time of death is mentioned as 8.30 p.m. and names of the appellants-accused have not been mentioned therein. It is lastly argued that no scientific method has been adopted in investigation as no foot mould had been prepared from the place of occurrence. 14. Counsel for the State, in reply, has argued that nothing has been put to the witnesses about the fact of delay and insofar as the names in the inquest reports (Ex.PC & Ex.PG) are concerned, it is just an irregularity. It is also argued that preparation of foot moulds were not possible being water in the fields due to sowing of paddy. 15. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the record with their able assistance, and are of the opinion that both the appeals as well as the revision petition deserve dismissal. 16. It is also argued that preparation of foot moulds were not possible being water in the fields due to sowing of paddy. 15. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the record with their able assistance, and are of the opinion that both the appeals as well as the revision petition deserve dismissal. 16. The appellants-accused could hardly cause any dent in the testimony of eye-witnesses (PW2 and PW3) who had not tried to implicate even three more persons who were present at the scene of occurrence with arms and remained unidentified, rather they had stated that only 4 persons had given injuries to the deceased. The manner in which the occurrence took place is corroborated by both the eye witnesses (PW2 & PW3). The time between the occurrence and the complaint, in our view, is not much to hold the concoction of a story by the prosecution as the beheaded bodies were lying in the fields and the natural reaction of the complainant party was to inform the family, as PW2 had stated that he rushed to the village when he was chased by the assailants and raised hue and cry. In that melee, consumption of two hours for putting the matter to the police cannot be considered to be a delay for concocting a story in order to falsely implicate the appellants-accused. 17. Insofar as the second argument raised by counsel for the appellants-accused that the column for names of the accused was left blank is concerned, the same cannot be given precedence in the light of other corroborative piece of evidence wherein the Court has relied upon the statement of the eye-witnesses and the weapon of offence have been recovered from the possession of the appellants-accused during the course of investigation. 18. With regard to third and last argument of counsel for the appellants-accused for not lifting the foot moulds, it has been rightly argued by the State Counsel that as the complainant party was preparing his fields for sowing paddy crop, it was full of muddy water and foot moulds were not possible to be lifted in such circumstances. No other argument has been raised. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no error has been committed by the Trial Court in appreciation of the evidence available on record while convicting and sentencing the appellants-accused. No other argument has been raised. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no error has been committed by the Trial Court in appreciation of the evidence available on record while convicting and sentencing the appellants-accused. Hence, both the appeals filed by the appellants-accused are hereby dismissed. 20. Insofar as the CRR-631 of 2008 is concerned, as the appellants-accused have already been sentenced with life imprisonment, we do not find it a fit case where the sentence could be enhanced. Hence, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.