Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1638 (PNJ)

GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2013-12-09

ANITA CHAUDHRY, M.JEYAPAUL

body2013
Judgment M.JEYAPAUL, J. 1. The sole accused Gurcharan Singh has challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. He was convicted under Section 302 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 3 years. He was further convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default to undergo a further R.I. for 1 month. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that PW4 Jagjit Singh is the son of PW5 Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh's daughter Sukhwant Kaur was married to one Ranbir Singh. But Ranbir Singh unfortunately died during the period of terrorism. A son was born to Sukhwant Kaur through the said marriage. As her husband had died, she was again given in marriage retaining her son with the family of PW5. On 16.10.2007 at about 8.30 a.m., PW4 had been to the tea-stall of his father PW5 Bhagat Singh. Accused Gurcharan Singh, the elder bother of Ranbir Singh came to the tea shop and asked PW5 to return his nephew Jinderpal Singh who was born to his brother Ranbir Singh and Sukhwant Kaur. As PW5 had not acceded to the request of the accused, the accused took out a kirpan (a small sword normally worn by a baptized Sikh) and aimed a blow at PW5. PW5 moved backwards and as a result of which the said blow did not fall on him. The accused thereafter made an attempt to deliver a blow with the same weapon on PW4 Jagjit Singh. He sustained injury on his right thigh. Nikhil Sachdeva a friend of PW4 who happened to be present over there rushed forward to save PW4 and PW5. Accused Gurcharan Singh having remarked that he should settle the score with Nikhil Sachdeva first, attacked him with the same kirpan on his right side of the chest. Nikhil Sachdeva fell down. The accused ran away with the weapon from the spot. Nikhil Sachdeva was rushed to Civil Hospital where he died as a consequence of the injury he sustained. 3. PW1 Dr.Anu Sharma, medico-legally examined PW4 Jagjit Singh on 16.10.2007 and found a reddish linear abrasion on the front portion of the middle one-third of the right thigh measuring 8cm x 2cm. Nikhil Sachdeva was rushed to Civil Hospital where he died as a consequence of the injury he sustained. 3. PW1 Dr.Anu Sharma, medico-legally examined PW4 Jagjit Singh on 16.10.2007 and found a reddish linear abrasion on the front portion of the middle one-third of the right thigh measuring 8cm x 2cm. Neither blood nor tenderness was present. He certified the said injury as simple in nature in the MLR prepared by him. 4. PW12 SI Gurmej Singh who took up the case for investigation based on the first information report lodged by PW4 arrested the accused on 16.10.2007. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused, a small sword was recovered near railway crossing beneath the stack of paddy stems. 5. PW6 Dr.Rupinderjit Kaur conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Nikhil Sachdeva on 17.10.2007. She found an incised penetrating wound measuring 3cm x 1cm on the right side of the front chest. The cause of death in her opinion was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to the right lung and right side of the heart which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injury was certified as ante mortem in nature. She had found only one injury on the dead body. 6. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW4 and PW5, in the background of the medical evidence and the recovery of the material object returned a verdict of conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 324 IPC. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of Nikhil Sachdeva. Only one injury was caused to the person who intervened in the quarrel. There would have been no pre-meditation for the accused to cause the death of Nikhil Sachdeva. Therefore, it is his submission that the case as projected by the prosecution may fall under the ambit of Section 304 Part I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. 8. Learned Addl.A.G., Punjab appearing for the State would contend that the accused had come to the scene of occurrence with an intention to settle the score with PW5. He had made an attack on PW4 and PW5. Ultimately, he attacked Nikhil Sachdeva who intervened to save PW4 and PW5. 8. Learned Addl.A.G., Punjab appearing for the State would contend that the accused had come to the scene of occurrence with an intention to settle the score with PW5. He had made an attack on PW4 and PW5. Ultimately, he attacked Nikhil Sachdeva who intervened to save PW4 and PW5. The seat of injury would demonstrate that the accused had aimed at vital part of the body with an intention to cause his death. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 and 324 IPC. 9. PW4 Jagjit Singh is found to be an injured witness. According to the evidence of PW4, the occurrence had taken place in front of shop of PW5 Bhagat Singh who is none other than the father of PW4. Inasmuch as PW4 is found to be an injured witness and the occurrence had taken place in front of the tea stall of PW5, their presence at 8.30 a.m. in the said tea stall is found to be quite natural. Further, the evidence of the injured witness cannot be rejected just because he happened to be the friend of deceased Nikhil Sachdeva. 10. PW4 and PW5 have categorically deposed that accused Gurcharan Singh who is the brother of former husband of Sukhwant Kaur sought to take into custody his nephew born to Sukhwant Kaur through his brother, but it was resisted by PW5. The accused attacked PW5, but when the attack did not fall on the target, he attacked PW4 with a small kirpan and caused simple injury. Nikhil Sachdeva unfortunately intervened to save PW4 and PW5. But the accused attacked the person who intervened on his right side chest and caused his death. In our considered view, the above ocular testimony is found to be trustworthy and reliable. Their evidence also is supported by the medical testimony. Further, we find that there was recovery of small kirpan from the accused and the same was found with human blood as per the FSL report. We find that the prosecution has established that accused Gurcharan Singh not only caused simply injury to PW4 Jagjit Singh, but also caused the death of Nikhil Sachdeva. 11. The question that survives for determination is whether the act of the accused would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. We find that the prosecution has established that accused Gurcharan Singh not only caused simply injury to PW4 Jagjit Singh, but also caused the death of Nikhil Sachdeva. 11. The question that survives for determination is whether the act of the accused would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. The facts and circumstances of this case would disclose that there had been some quarrel between PW4 and PW5 on the one side and the accused on the other side. As PW5 had resisted the plea of the accused to have his nephew in his custody, he had attacked the intervenor who had nothing to do with the demand made by the accused. There would have been no pre-meditation on the part of the accused to commit murder of Nikhil Sachdeva. The fact remains that he had arrived at the scene of crime not with any weapon but with only the traditional kirpan of small version. The quarrel had erupted suddenly on the demand made by the accused with PW5. Only one injury as per the ocular version supported by medical evidence had been caused by the accused on the person of the deceased. In all probability, the accused would have directed his attack on the deceased who was an intervenor in the heat of passion. Inasmuch as he had caused only one injury, we can safely presume that he had not taken undue advantage of the situation. He had not acted cruelly or in an unusual manner. But we are conscious of the fact that he had caused an injury on the right side of chest of deceased which was likely to cause his death. 12. In Ravindra Shalik Naik and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009(12) SCC 257 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar situation where the deceased who intervened to pacify the quarrel was done to death held that the case squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Ultimately, the accused was convicted under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 13. In the background of the above ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we having thoroughly analyzed the above evidence on record come to a conclusion that the act of the accused squarely falls under Section 4 of Section 300 IPC and the same is punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 14. 13. In the background of the above ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we having thoroughly analyzed the above evidence on record come to a conclusion that the act of the accused squarely falls under Section 4 of Section 300 IPC and the same is punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 14. A very weak submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that accused was afflicted with Bipolar Disorder even at the time of occurrence. Of course, on a careful perusal of the records, we find that the trial Court based on the plea of insanity taken by the accused within 4 months from the date of occurrence subjected him to medical examination. The Doctor kept him under observation from 15.4.2008 to 17.4.2008 and submitted a report Ex.DB, wherein he has mentioned that the accused was afflicted with “Bipolar Affective Disorder, current episode mixed, currently in remission”. 15. There is no medical record produced by the appellant that he took treatment for such Bipolar Affective Disorder on the day of occurrence or prior thereto. It may be a case where the accused who had been in prison was afflicted with such an ailment subsequent to the occurrence. When there is no concrete proof to establish the mental disorder on the date of occurrence or prior thereto, we have proposed not to give much credence to the defence version that the accused was mentally ill even at the time when he committed the offence. 16. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC. Instead, we convict the accused-appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to 7 years R.I. The fine amount of Rs.1 lac and the default sentence imposed and the direction issued by the trial Court to pay the fine amount, on recovery, as compensation to the heirs of the deceased for the offence under Section 302 IPC shall be maintained for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. Further, we maintain the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 17. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The sentence imposed shall run concurrently.