Punjab-Haryana High Court
***** vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2010
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and
Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004
Date of decision : March 3, 2010
*****
Balraj Singh and another
............appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...........respondent
Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004
Gurpreet Singh and another
............appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...........respondent
Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004
Narinder Pal Singh
............appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...........respondent
Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and
Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [2]
Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004
Gurpal Singh
............appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...........respondent
Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005
State of Punjab
............appellant
Versus
Narinder Pal Singh and others
...........respondents
Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004
Gurraj Singh
............petitioner
Versus
Narinder Pal Singh and others
...........respondents
Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004
Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and
Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [3]
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. R.S Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sunnu Saggar, Advocate for the appellant.
(Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004)
Mr. R.S Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jagdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the
appellants.
(Crl. Appeal No. 802-DB of 2004)
Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
(Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2004) and for the
respondents in (Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and
Crl. Revision No.2629-DB of 2004)
Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V.D Goel, Advocate for the appellant.
(Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004)
Mrs. Gurveen H. Singh, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab.
Mr. A.P.S Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004)
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
Vide this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 763-DB of 2004 filed by Balraj Singh son of Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [4] Balvir Singh, Jagpal Singh son of Gurcharan Singh; Criminal Appeal No. 802-DB of 2004 filed by Gurpreet Singh @ Gauri son of Tej Singh, Rajpreet Singh @ Lalli son of Tej Singh; Criminal Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 filed by Narinder Pal Singh @ Moti son of Jagjit Singh and Criminal Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 filed by Gurpal Singh son of Harjinder Singh to challenge the judgment dated 16.8.2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar in Sessions Case No.27 of 16.9.2002 arising out of First Information Report No.109 dated 29.5.2002 registered under Sections 302/427/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Lambi, and also Criminal Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 filed by State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No.2629 of 2004 filed by Gurraj Singh son of Gamdoor Singh to enhance the sentence from the imprisonment for life to death or in the alternate all the sentence awarded to the accused be ordered to run consecutively. By the said judgment, the appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under;
i) All the convicts were sentenced to undergo RI for two years each under Section 148 IPC.
ii) Narinder Pal Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year for causing the Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [5] death of Sukhdev Singh.
iii)Narinder Pal Singh was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year for causing the death of Gamdoor Singh.
iv)Narinder Pal Singh was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year for causing the death of Gurlal Singh.
v) Balraj Singh was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year for causing the death of Jagwinder Singh.
vi)Narinder Pal Singh, Jagpal Singh, Gurpal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Rajpreet Singh were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000 each and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for causing the death of Jagwinder Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [6] Singh by Balraj Singh.
vii)Balraj Singh, Jagpal Singh, Gurpal Singh, Rajpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year each for causing the death of Sukhdev Singh by their co-accused Narinder Pal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
viii)Balraj Singh, Jagpal Singh, Gurpal Singh, Rajpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year, each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for causing the death of Gamdoor Singh by their co- accused Narinder Pal Singh.
ix) Balraj Singh, Jagpal Singh, Gurpal Singh, Rajpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they will undergo further RI for a period of one year each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for causing the death Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [7] of Gurlal Singh by their co-accused Narinder Pal Singh.
x) Jagpal Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt by means of gandasa and convicts Narinder Pal Singh, Gurpal Singh, Balraj Singh, Rajpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for two years each under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC.
xi)Gurpal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Rajpreet Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for nine months each under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt by dangs to Gurlal Singh, Jagwinder Singh and Gamdoor Singh whereas Balraj Singh, Jagpal Singh and Narinder Pal Singh convicts were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of nine months each under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC.
xii)Narinder Pal Singh was also sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act for misusing his licensed .12 bore DBBL gun.
xiii)Balraj Singh was also sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act for misusing his licensed .32 bore pistol.
All the sentences qua all convicts were ordered to run Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [8] concurrently.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that police party headed by SI/SHO Nazar Singh, Police Station Lambi was present in the area of village Wanwala in connection with patrol duty. Gurraj Singh along with Jagdeep Singh had met the police party. Then Gurraj Singh made statement, which was recorded by SI, Nazar Singh on 29.5.2002 at 9:30 a.m (Ex.PJ). After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was registered at 10:00 A.M at Police Station, Lambi. Special Report was sent to and received by Ilaqa Magistrate at 1:30 P.M. Gurraj Singh son of Gamdoor Singh resident of Middu Khera stated to the police that he is residing at Mandi Killianwali. Last night i.e on 28.5.2002, he came to village Middu Khera. Today at 5:00 a.m his father, Gamdoor Singh, brother Gurlal Singh, uncle Sukhdev Singh, Uncle's son Jagwinder singh on a tractor had gone to their fields "Ponia" to irrigate the land with tubewell water. Their Seeri Darshan Singh and Gauri were also with them. At 7:45 a.m, he along with Jaspreet Kaur wife of Jagwinder Singh had gone to their fields to serve tea to his father and other members. In the meantime, three maruti cars two of white colour and one of sky blue colour came to the spot and out of those cars, Balraj Singh son of Balvir Singh armed with pistol, Jagpal Singh son of Gurcharn Singh armed Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [9] with gandasa, Narinderpal Singh alias Moti son of Jagjit Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel gun, Rajpreet Singh alias Kali and Gurpreet Singh alias Gauri sons of Tej Singh, Gurpal Singh and Iqbal Singh armed with dangs had alighted and stated that they have to bring water by diverting the water course from the outlet. Jagwinder Singh replied that they are already using the water course to irrigate their land from the tube well and would not allow them to use the water course for irrigation of the land. Then Balraj Singh fired a shot from the pistol hitting Jagwinder Singh below his left ear on the neck. Narinderpal Singh alias Moti fired with his 12 bore double barrel gun at Sukhdev Singh hitting him on the right eye brow, nose and left ear. Sukhdev Singh to save himself and his son Jagwinder Singh fired with his 12 bore gun at Iqbal Singh. After that Narinderpal Singh reloaded his 12 bore gun and fired at Gurlal Singh hitting him on his left nipple in the chest. Second shot fired by Narinderpal Singh had hit Gamdoor Singh on his forehead. Jagpal Singh armed with a gandasa gave injuries to Gurlal Singh. Jagpal Singh gave another gandass blow to Jagwinder Singh. More injuries were caused by the accused party with dangs/sticks.
After sending the case for registration of FIR, SI, Nazar Singh along with the complainant-party had gone to the place of occurrence. Jaspreet Kaur, Baltej Kaur and Rajbir Kaur were present on the spot. Constable Harjinder Singh was sent to village Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [10] Middu Khera to bring some respectables. ASI, Darshan Singh was sent to bring one photographer. Photographer had taken the photographs. Inquest reports Ex.PBB, Ex. PCC, Ex.PDD, Ex.PEE of the dead bodies of Sukhdev Singh, Jagwinder Singh, Gurlal Singh and Gamdoor Singh were prepared respectively. SI, Nazar Singh on telephone received message from ASI, Naranjan Singh that dead body of Iqbal Singh is also lying in Civil Hospital, Lambi. ASI, Naranjan Singh was directed to stay in Civil Hospital, Lambi to guard the dead body. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and the same was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. From near the dead body of Jagwinder Singh, an empty of .32 bore was also recovered and the same was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession. One broken double barrel gun with two empty cartridges was also recovered from the spot. Along with the butt, six live cartridges of 12 bore were also recovered. Recovered articles were sealed with the seal bearing impression `NS'. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses. Near the dead bodies of Gurlal Singh and Gamdoor Singh, two empties of 12 bore and one empty from near the dead body of Sukhdev Singh were lifted. Empties were made into separate sealed parcels and the parcels were taken into police possession. Two cots were found Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [11] near the trolley. One plastic bag was lying on the cots and from that bag, ten live cartridges of 12 bore were recovered. Empties and the live cartridges were made into separate sealed parcel. Parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memo. Dead bodies were handed over to police officials for post mortem examination.
SI, Nazar Singh along with SI Satpal Singh had gone to police station Lambi. Inquest report of the dead body of Iqbal Singh Ex.PC/4 was prepared. Body was handed over to ASI, Satpal Singh for post mortem examination. Statement of Gurpreet Singh, Ex.PFF was sent to the police station for recording cross-version of the case vide DDR Mark-D. SI, Nazar Singh again had gone to the place of occurrence. On interrogation of the persons present on the spot, version of Gurpreet Singh was found to be false. Rough site plan Ex.PGG with correct marginal notes was prepared.
SI, Nazar Singh had gone to Civil Hospital, Malout, where Gauri Singh, PW was lying admitted. After getting opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured, statement of Gauri was recorded. ASI, Darshan Singh had produced copies of post mortem reports of Gamdoor Singh, Gurlal Singh, Jagwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh along with one sealed parcel of the clothes worn by the deceased Jagwinder Singh, one sealed bottle of glass containing a bullet of .32 bore, sealed parcel of the clothes of Gurlal Singh, Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [12] Sukhdev Singh, Gamdoor Singh, one sealed glass bottle containing pellets, another sealed glass bottle containing pellets taken out from the dead body of Sukhdev Singh, another sealed glass bottle containing pellets taken out of the dead body of Gamdoor Singh and sealed parcel of the bullet taken out of the dead body of Jagwinder Singh.
ASI, Sat Pal came to Civil Hospital, Malout and produced one sealed parcel containing pellets taken out of the body of Iqbal Singh and the second parcel of the clothes of Iqbal Singh. All the parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
On 31.5.2002, police party was holding nakabandi near T point Kallianwali. Maruti Car no. DL-6CA-3025 was noticed while coming from the side of Dabwali driven by Gurpreet Singh accused. Gurpal Singh and Jagpal Singh were on the backside of the car. Car was taken into police possession vide separate memo Ex.PL. Gurpreet Singh was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement Ex.PX. After that Gurpal Singh was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement Ex.PZ. Jagpal Singh suffered disclosure statement Ex.PY and in pursuance of the disclosure statement got recovered weapons of offence from the specified places. Recovered dangs were taken into police possession vide separate memos Ex.PX/1 to Ex. PY/1 attested by the witnesses. Gandasa was found Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [13] to be stained with blood. Sketch of the gandasa was prepared separately. Gandasa was made into sealed parcel then parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PZ/1 attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the incharge of the malkhana.
On 31.5.2002, Narinder Pal Singh and Balraj Singh had surrendered in the Court of SDJM with weapons and arms licenses. After their formal arrest, weapons and arms licenses were taken into police possession.
On 1.6.2002, Narinder Pal Singh was interrogated. Narinder Pal Singh suffered disclosure statement Ex.PJJ and in pursuance of the disclosure statement got recovered car no. PB-30B- 4672 which was taken into police possession. On return to the police station car was deposited with the incharge of malkhana.
On 3.6.2002, Rajpreet Singh surrendered before the Court of SDJM Malout. He was formally arrested in this case. On 4.6.2002, Rajpreet Singh was interrogated. Rajpreet Singh suffered disclosure statement Ex.PAA and in pursuance of the disclosure statement got recovered a car bearing No.HR-25-A-4025 and dang Ex.P-31from the specified place which were taken into police possession vide separate memo Ex.PAA/1 attested by the witnesses.
Accused were charged under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323/149 IPC. Accused Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [14] pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its charge, prosecution examined following witnesses:
PW-1, Dr. Sunil Bansal on 29.5.2002 at 5:00 p.m had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Gamdoor Singh aged about 70 years and observed the following injuries:
1. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm in size on left side of forehead 5cm from left eye brow from its middle and 3 cms from midline, muscled deep. Clotted blood was present. On dissection there was no fracture of underlying bone.
2. Multiple small punctured lacerated wound with inverted margin of size vary from 0.3 cm to 0.5 cm in diameter on enterolacteral side of left side of abdomen. Lower part of chest and upper part of left lateral side of thigh, 10 cms from umplicus in an area of 25 cm x 23 cms. On dissection, underlying ciils of small and large gut, spleen and lower part of left lung and left kidney badly lacerated. Cavity full of dark colour blood present. 5 distorted metallic pellets recovered from abdominal cavity and given to police in sealed bottle.
Cause of death was due to severe haemorrhage and shock due to injury no.2 which alone or in combination with injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
PW-2, Dr. Santokh Singh on 29.5.2002 at 4:15 p.m had Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [15] conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sukhdev Singh and found the following injuries:
1. A lacerated wound 4x3 cm with inverted margins over right eye socket with right eye boll badly churned out into pieces with underlying eye socket bones badly shattered and driven into cranial cavity. On dissection underline brain matter was badly lacerated into pieces and clotted blood present. 8 small distorted metallic pellets recovered from the cranial cavity and given to police in sealed glass vial.
2. Multiple small punctured lacerated wound with inverted margins size varying .3 to .5cm in diameter present over the upper chest, neck, face and forehead. On dissection clotted blood present.
3. Multiple small punctured lacerated wound size varying from .3 to .5 cm in diameter over the left thigh anterior surface. On dissection clotted blood present.
Cause of death was due to severe brain injury due to injury no.1 which alone or and in combination with other injuries could lead to death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
At 5:15 p.m, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Iqbal Singh about 25 years old and found the following injuries:
Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [16]
1. A lacerated wound with inverted abraded margins measuring 5 x 4 cm on left chest, 5 cm above left nipple. 4 cm from the left sternal bodder. On dissection underlying lung was badly lacerated and upper part of the hurt was lacerated alone with laceration of the other mediastinal structures and major vessels. Four distorted metallic pellets recovered from left chest cavity and were given to the police in sealed glass vial.
Other organs were healthy.
Cause of death was due to severe haemorrahge and shock due to injury no.1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury was found to be ante mortem in nature.
PW-3, Dr. S.S Malhi on 29.5.2002 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Jagwinder Singh, aged about 35 years and observed following injuries:
1. Incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm into bone deep over the right frontoparietal area 2 cm from midline and parallel to the midline starting 3 cms from interior hairline. On dissection underlying bone was healthy. Clotted blood was present.
2. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm over the occiptal region transversally placed in midline 3 cms from posterior hair line. On dissection clotted blood Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [17] was present.
3. Lacerated punctured wound with inverted abraded margins situated over the left side of neck, 5 cm below the lobule of left ear. On dissection underlying muscles blood vessels trachea and soft tissues badly lacerated and wound extending upward towards the floor of mouth and on dissection of maxillary area a distorted metallic bullet recovered embedded in the maxillary bone. This bullet was put into a glass vial which was sealed and handed over to the police. Clotted blood was present all over the wound.
4. Lacerated punctured wound with inverted abraded margins 1 cm diameter size present on the dorsum of right fore arm 6 cm below elbow joint. On dissection, the wound extending anteriorly and distally in the fore arm and opening into a lacerated wound 2 cms x 1 cm with everted margines on the anterior aspect of right forearm in its middle, with muscles and other tissues badly lacerated with clotted blood was present
5. Reddish contusion 5 cms x 4 cms on the right Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [18] cheek. On dissection clotted blood was present.
6. Reddish abrasion 3.5 cm x 2 cms over the right side of forehead just above and lateral to the lateral end of right eye brow.
On dissection clotted blood was present
7. reddish contusion 3 cms x 2 cms over the right scapular region in its lower part. On dissection clotted blood was present.
Cause of death was due to haemorrahage and shock due to injury no.3 which alone or in combination with other injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
On the same day, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurlal Singh and found the following injuries on his person.
1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm with inverted abraded black and margin present on the left side of chest at the level of left nipple. Corresponding hole was present on the left side of shirt on anterior side. On dissection of the wound underlying ribs broken and underlying lung heart, major blood vessels and other soft tissues badly lacerated with left side plural cavity full of dark colour blood. 8 distorted metallic pellets Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [19] recovered from the left side plural cavity sealed in a glass vial and handed over to the police.
2. Reddish contusion 4 cms x 3 cms on the left scapular regions on the upper part. On dissection blood was present.
3. Reddish contusion 8 cms x 3 cm on the left side of back in the lower costal region. On dissection clotted blood was present.
4. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm over the inner and dorsal aspect of right little finger. On dissection underlying soft tissues cut and with clotted blood was present.
5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the medial border of right hand 2 cm distal to the right wrist joint. On dissection clotted blood was present.
Cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock mainly due to injury no.1 which alone or in combination with the other injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
PW-4, Dr. Satish Tiwari, on 29.5.2002 at 6:00 p.m had medico-legally examined Gora Singh and found the following injuries on his person:
1.Round inverted blackish burn size ¼th cm.
Present on inner side of right knee joint.
Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [20]
2. Blackish superficial burn size 3x1.5 cm present on outer middle and lower side of left foot. X-ray was advised. A.P lateral view.
3. Blackish pin head size burn present on front side of left ankle joint.
All the injuries were gun shot injuries.
PW-5, Gurraj Singh son of Gamdoor Singh (deceased) complainant-eye witness and PW-6, Jaspreet Kaur widow of Jagwinder Singh (deceased) are the eye witnesses. Both have supported the prosecution story by saying that Sukhdev Singh, Jagwinder singh and Gurlal Singh and Gamdoor Singh were murdered by the appellants. Injuries were also caused to Gora Singh.
PW-7, Bhupinder Singh, Head Constable tendered his affidavit Ex.PL.
PW-8, Suresh Kumar, Draftsman had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PM.
PW-9, LC Harbaksh Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PN. PW-10, Lachhman Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PO. PW-11, Ashok Kumar stated that Zen Car No. PB-30- 4672 was registered in the name of Iqbal Singh.
PW-12, Avinash Chander stated that as per record car No. DL-6CA-3025 was in the name of Sukhraj Singh. Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [21] PW-13, ASI, Sat Pal Singh was with the party of SI, Nazar Singh, Investigating Officer at the initial stage of investigation of the case. Dead bodies were entrusted to him for post mortem examination. On 31.5.2002, Narinder Pal Singh and Balraj Singh had surrendered in the Court of SDJM with fire arms. On receipt of information, he had formally arrested Narinder Pal Singh. 12 bore double barrel gun no. 99144 along with arms licence was taken into police possession. Balraj Singh was also formally arrested along with point 32 bore pistol along with a magazine and arms license. Weapon with license was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
Police party of Mr. Nazar singh while holding nakabandi, noticed Maruti Car No. DL-6CA-3025 while coming from the side of Village Dabwali. Gurpreet Singh, Gurpal Singh and Jagpal Singh were in the car and they were arrested in this case. Car was taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. Gurpreet Singh, Jagpal Singh and Gurpal Singh were interrogated seperately and in pursuance of their disclosure statement got recovered weapons of offence. Gandasa got recovered by Jagpal Singh was found stained with blood. Sketch of the gandass was prepared. The same was sealed and was taken into police possession. Dang got recovered by Gurpreet Singh and Gurpal Singh were also taken into possession vide separate memos. Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [22] PW-14, ASI, Nazar Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW-15, ASI, Darshan Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PKK.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Gurpal Singh and Jagpal Singh is that they were not present at the spot. They were falsely implicated in this case due to party faction.
Defence version of Balraj Singh is that he was not present at the spot and when he came to know about the case, then surrendered before the Court of JMIC, Malout along with pistol. Pistol was taken into police possession and was fired in the police station. Case property was tampered with before sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.
Defence version of Narinder Pal Singh is that he is innocent. Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur, PWs were close relations of the deceased and moreover they were introduced as false witnesses by the police. The PWs were interested in the prosecution so they had deposed falsely. He along with Iqbal Singh deceased, Harpreet Singh and agricultural laboures was irrigating out land through the disputed water course. Sukhdev Singh, Jagwinder Singh, Gurlal Singh and Gamdoor Singh now deceased had stopped their flow of water and attacked them. Sukhdev Singh opened the Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [23] attack by firing with his .12 bore gun hitting Iqbal Singh. Sukhdev Singh fired the second shot towards him and Harpeet Singh but they escaped. He and Harpreet Singh fired in their self defence with gun and pistol which resulted in cross-firing from the side of Gamdoor Singh deceased and others. No other accused was present at the spot except himself. Gori Singh and Darshan Siungh were not present at the spot and injuries on the person of Gori were fabricated in the night of 29.5.2002 in order to create the evidence of a stamp witness. The complainant party did not use their bore nor passed water through the disputed water channel. No empty was found at the spot. His gun and case property of this case were tampered with before it was sent to FSL. His gun was also fired in the police station. The whole story was connected and fabricated because the complainant party was the aggressor. The prosecution had collected false evidence and circumstances against him and the investigation in this case was partial.
Defence version of Gurpreet Singh and Rajpreet Singh is that they are innocent. In fact Nachhattar Singh resident of V. Bandi, district Bathinda is father of PW6 Jaspreet Kaur, who is the wife of the deceased Jagwinder Singh. Hardeep Kaur is the daughter of Balwant Singh who is real brother of said Nachhatar Singh and that Hardeep Kaur is married with Lakhbir Singh resident of village Bir Sekhan. Harpreet Kaur, who is the daughter of aforesaid Lakhbir Singh was married with him (Gurpreet Singh) in the Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [24] year 1996 and in his marriage PW Jaspreet Kaur and her husband Jagwinder Singh were the mediators. His family had good relations with parents of deceased Jagwinder Singh and both families used to visit houses of each other on the occasions of weel and woes. As Jaspreet Kaur and her husband were mediators, a gold ring finger was given by his parents to deceased Jagwinder Singh while PW Jaspreet Kaur was given clothes only and no gold ornament was given to her in that marriage and due to that family of Jagwinder Singh became offended with his family, resulting thereby relations between both families became strained and even no member of their family had attended the marriage of Rajpreet Singh in February 2000. They belonged to Congress party while complainant party belongs to Akali dal ( Badal) group. In the last Punjab Legislative Assembly elections from the Lambi constituency the main contest was between S.Parkash Singh Badal and S. Gurnam Singh Ablu Khurana who was congress candidate Daljit Singh is the husband of sister of their father and his daughter Rani is married with Harjit Singh son of aforesaid Gurnam Singh Ablu Khurana. They openly supported S. Gurnam Singh Ablu Khurana being congress candidate and our relative. They were falsely implicated in the above case. Their father Tej Singh and uncle Darshan Singh are DBBL guns licence holders since 30/35 years."
In defence, DW-1, Harjinder Singh, Driver appeared and proved the entries of log book dated 29.5.2002 maintained by SP(D), Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [25] Muktsar.
DW-2, Nachhatar Singh, Senior Assistant stated that arms license of pistol no. 5272 was valid in the name of Harpreet Singh up to 18.3.2001.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the appellants and from the perusal of evidence on file, the appellants were convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that appellants and the complainant-party are the collaterals. Their common ancestor was Charat Singh. Dispute amongst the parties was regarding use of water course. Narinder Pal Singh, Iqbal Singh (deceased) and Gurpreet Singh along with labour were irrigating their land through the water course. Sukhdev Singh, Jagwinder Singh, Gurlal Singh, Gamdoor Singh had restrained them from using water course and attacked them. Sukhdev Singh fired a shot hitting Iqbal Singh. Second shot was fired towards Narinder Pal Singh and Harpreet Singh but they had saved themselves. Then Narinder Pal Singh and Harpreet Singh in defence fired with gun and pistol. There was cross firing. No other appellant was present. Complainant- Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [26] party was the aggressor. Presence of the complainant, Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur at the time of occurrence is doubtful. Gurraj Singh was residing at village Killanwali. His wife was a teacher. As per story, one day earlier to the occurrence he came to Middu Khera. He is a chance witness and very much interested in the success of this case because he is the son of Gamdoor Singh, deceased. In case there was firing by the appellants then very strange that Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur did not receive fire arm injuries. If intention of the appellants was to eliminate the complainant-party then there was no reason to leave the complainant and Jaspreet Kaur. At about 5:00 a.m, deceased had gone to irrigate the land. At 7:45 a.m, two persons i.e the complainant and Jaspreet Kaur were not expected to be present at the place of occurrence with tea for six persons. According to the witnesses, deceased had not taken breakfast before leaving their houses but as per post mortem examination, semi digested food was noticed. If witnesses had gone to the fields with tea then utensils should have been noticed by the Investigating Officer near the place of occurrence. Bore was installed by the complainant-party but tractor and other implements to install bore were not noticed by the Investigating Officer. Injuries noted by the doctor are not as per the statements of the witnesses in the Court. When there was cross firing then witnesses cannot state as to which injury on the person of one deceased was caused by whom. In fact Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [27] after post mortem examination, story was concocted. Specific injuries were attributed to each of the appellants. FIR is inquest oriented. According to the story, Sukhdev Singh fired a shot hitting Iqbal Singh but injury on the person of Iqbal Singh was after receipt of fire arm injury by Sukhdev Singh. Prosecution not in a position to explain how Iqbal Singh received injuries. From Civil Hosptial, Lambi, ruqa was sent to the police station at 9:00 a.m but instead of going to the Civil Hospital, Investigating Officer had gone to the place of occurrence. After receipt of ruqa, there was no information with the Investigating Officer as to where the occurrence had taken place. Without intimation qua the place of occurrence, Investigating Officer was not in a position to reach the place of occurrence. Investigating officer should have gone to the Civil Hospital. Three empties of 12 bore gun were lifted from the spot. One was missed cartridges, C-5 and C-6 as per report of the Laboratory were found to be fired from Gun No.5277of Sukhdev Singh. No explanation regarding the third empty. Jaspreet Kaur was left on the spot to guard the dead body but while preparing inquest reports, statement of Jaspreet Kaur was not recorded. Statement of Jaspreet Kaur was recorded at 6:30 p.m i.e after the post mortem examinations. If Jaspreet Kaur had witnessed the occurrence then her statement should have been recorded before preparing the inquest reports. From Civil Hospital, Lambi, ruqa was sent at 8:00 a.m, whereas statement of the Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [28] complainant was recorded at 9:30 a.m. Distance of the place of recovery from the police station was 12 kilometers so recording of the statement of Gurraj Singh at 9:30 am shows that statement is ante time. To explain the injury on the person of Iqbal Singh, statement Ex.PFF alleged to be made by Gurpreet Singh was recorded but he was not produced by the prosecution.
Learned senior counsel Mr. R.S Cheema and Mr. Amol Rattan Singh argued that according to the evidence, Gurpreet Singh, Rajpreet Singh sons of Teja Singh and Gurpal Singh were armed with dangs. No specific role attributed to the above said appellants as to which injury was caused by which accused. Injuries no. 5, 6 and 7 on the person of Jagwinder Singh were with the dang but injuries were found to be simple in nature. Injuries were superficial and possible by fall. Cause of death was not due to injuries no. 5, 6 and 7 attributed to Gurpal Singh. Injuries no. 2 & 3 on the person of Gurlal Singh are alleged to have been caused by Rajpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh respectively but the above said injuries were found to be simple in nature and possible by fall. When the prosecution is not clear whether Iqbal Singh fired a shot first hitting Sukhdev Singh and after that Sukhdev Singh had fired a shot hitting Iqbal Singh then it means that story was a concocted. Gora Singh and Darshan Singh had witnessed the occurrence but they were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Gurpal Singh, appellant is Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [29] 40% handicapped. He cannot give three dang blows to Jagwinder Singh even when he cannot walk properly. He is the brother of Iqbal Singh, deceased and if he was present on the spot then Gurpal Singh should have taken Iqbal Singh to the nearest hospital. There was no reason with the co-accued to shift Iqbal Singh to nearest hospital. According to the story, dang blows were given to Jagwinder Singh, after he had received fire arm injury but Jaspreet Kaur stated that no dang blow was given to Jagwinder Singh after receipt of fire arm injury. Gurpal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Rajpreet Singh were implicated along with other appellants being their relatives.
State counsel and counsel for the revisionist argued that occurrence was during day time at about 7:45 a.m in the morning. All the appellants were named. Iqbal Singh received fire arm injury when he tried to snatch gun from Sukhdev Singh (deceased). Four murders from the side of complainant-party and one from the side of the appellants. Complainant after seeing the casualties became nervous. Statement of the complainant was recorded at 9:30 a.m. Special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 1:30 p.m. Whereas the post mortem examinations were after the receipt of special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate. Iqbal Singh was shifted to hospital by Gurpreet Singh appellant. So Gurpreet Singh cannot argue that he was not present at the spot. Fire arm injuries were fired by Balraj singh and Narinder Pal Singh. Incised wound were Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [30] with a gandasa by Japgal Singh. Four type of injuries with four different weapons. No question of injuries by fall. Seat of injuries on the person of Jagwinder Singh shows that after receipt of fire arm injuries, injuries are not possible by fall. i.e few injuries on the front and one injury on the back. On the same day, supplementary statement of Gurraj Singh was recorded while preparing inquest report. No doubt that the appellants are related to the complainant- party but before the occurrence, there was no serious dispute amongst the parties. There was no idea to name the appellants. Occurrence is an admitted fact. Only dispute is whether the injuries were caused in self-defence. According to the defence version, Iqbal Singh had fired in defence. Four casualties from the side of the complainant-party. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
First submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused is that presence of Gurraj Singh, complainant and Jaspreet Kaur at the time of occurrence is doubtful. But after going through the evidence on the file, we are of the opinion that presence of Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur at the time of occurrence was natural. Gurraj Singh is the resident of Middu Khera but he was residing at Village Killianwali because his wife was a teacher. Gurraj Singh is the son of Gamdoor Singh deceased but no evidence on the file that he was residing permanently at village Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [31] Killianwala. Admittedly, wife of Gurraj Singh is a teacher but one day earlier to the occurrence, he came to his parental village. Ex.PFF was recorded on the statement of Gurpreet Singh son of Gurmander Singh and this Gurmander Singh is the real brother of Narinder Pal Singh, appellant. As per Ex.PFF, Gurraj was present on the spot. No ration card or copy of voter list in defence produced to show that Gurraj Singh was permanently residing at village Killianwali. Appellants and the complainant-party are the relatives. They had common ancestor, namely, Charat Singh. Land of the complainant- party was near the land of the appellants. Complainant-party had installed a new tube well and on the day of occurrence, tube well was to be operated for the first time to irrigate the land. To attend the opening ceremony of the tube well, Gurraj Singh came to his parental village. If wife of Gurraj Singh is a teacher near village Killianwali then nothing to presume that Gurraj Singh is a chance witness.
Jaspreet Kaur is the widow of Jagwinder Singh, deceased. At 5:00 a.m, deceased had gone to their fields to irrigate land from the newly installed tube well. At 7:45 a.m, Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur had gone to the fields to serve them tea. Occurrence was witnessed by them while standing at a distance of 25-30 karams. As per defence version, there was a cross-firing. In self-defence, appellant Narinder Pal Singh, Iqbal Singh (deceased) and Harpreet Singh had fired with their respective weapons. While Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [32] standing at a distance of 25-30 karams no question of receipt of fire arm injuries by Gurraj Singh or Jaspreet Kaur. So the appellants cannot argue that due to non receipt of injuries by eye witnesses namely, Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur, their presence is doubtful. Deceased with two `seeris' had gone to irrigate the land. When newly installed tube well was to be operated for the first time to irrigate the land then presence of Jaspreet Kaur at the spot is also natural. Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur at 7:45 a.m had gone with tea. No Bar that if deceased had left the house at 5:00 a.m then at 7:45 am, eye witnesses were not to visit their fields with tea. When newly installed tube well or electric motor is to be operated for the first time then presence of ladies and children is natural. Jaspreet Kaur stated that while leaving house, deceased had not taken breakfast but as per post mortem reports, semi- digestive food was noticed. But nothing on the file that after leaving the house and before the occurrence, deceased had not taken anything. When tube well is installed then food articles are kept in the field and are served to the labourers, masons and the persons employed to install the tube well whenever they felt necessary. After the occurrence, police party came to the spot. While preparing inquest reports, utensils, tractors and other implements to install tube well were not shown in the inquest reports. But, while preparing inquest reports, only those Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [33] articles are shown which were found on the person of the deceased or which were lying near the dead bodies. Nothing on the file that utensils and other implements were kept at the spot where the occurrence had taken place. Sometimes, tube well/electric motor is installed at one corner of a particular khasra number, whereas tea, lunch etc. are taken while sitting on cots underneath the tree standing at some distance. After the occurrence at 7:45 a.m, Jaspreet Kaur was deputed to guard the dead bodies and Gurraj Singh had gone to lodge report and in the area of village Wanwala at 9:30 a.m, SI, Nazar Singh had met the complainant where his statement was recorded. After that police party came to the spot. Jaspreet Kaur was present on the spot. Four dead bodies were lying on the spot. Inquest reports were prepared. On receipt of message from hospital, regarding dead body of Iqbal Singh, Nazar Singh SI had gone to the hospital. Inquest report was prepared. Thereafter, he again came back to the spot. On the basis of statement, Ex.PJ sent at 9:30 a.m, formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was recorded at 10:00 a.m. Special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 1:30 p.m. Statement of Jaspreet Kaur was recorded at 6:30 p.m. In the statement of Gurraj Singh recorded at 9:30 a.m, all the appellants were named. In case statement of Jaspreet Kaur was not recorded immediately after the inquest reports then story is not to be ignored on the ground that statement of Jaspreet Kaur was recorded at 6:30 Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [34] p.m i.e after the post mortem examination of the dead bodies. When SI, Nazar Singh admitted that at 9:30 a.m, HC Rajinder Singh was sent and he brought 28 persons including Jaspreet Kaur. Place of occurrence was not far away from the residence of the complainant- party. After witnessing the occurrence when death was of four persons out of fear, possibility of Jaspreet Kaur to visit her house and come again to the spot with some respectable cannot be ruled out. When no question was asked to Jaspreet Kaur that till the arrival of police, she had not gone anywhere. Then learned counsel for the appellants was not right to argue that Jaspreet Kaur was introduced later on. Gurraj Singh in his statement recorded at 9:30 a.m has named all the appellants. While preparing inquest reports if Investigating Officer failed to mention that two cots were found lying near the trolley, some implements or tractor were also noticed on the spot then on this short ground, story is not to be ignored because dead bodies were found lying at different places and only those articles were shown in the inquest reports which are found lying near the dead bodies or recovered from the person of the deceased. While preparing inquest reports supplementary statement of Gurraj Singh was recorded. When four casualties and occurrence is witnessed while standing at a distance of 25-30 karams then witness was bound to become nervous. While disclosing the incident for the first time, complainant failed to give the details of the occurrence Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [35] minutely because FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the occurrence. After the statement Ex.PJ at 9:30 a.m, then some facts which were not disclosed to the police earlier were disclosed later on when inquest reports were being prepared. No case that in the FIR, appellants and the eye witnesses were not named.
In the FIR, Gurraj Singh stated that firstly two shots were fired by Balraj Singh hitting Jagwinder Singh. Then Sukhdev Singh fired a shot when Iqbal Singh tried to snatch gun from him. After that Sukhdev Singh received fire arm injury at the hands of Narinderpal Singh. As discussed earlier, dead body of Iqbal Singh was shifted to hospital by Gurpreet Singh. From Civil Hospital, Lambi, ruqa was sent at 8:00 a.m to Police Station, Lambi. Contention of the learned counsel was that on receipt of ruqa from PHC, Lambi, Nazar Singh should have gone to PHC, Lambi. There was no information with the police as to where the occurrence had taken place. Question is how Nazar Singh had gone to the place of occurrence meaning thereby that the story is not correct one but submission of the counsel for the appellants is not correct one. Dead body of Iqbal Singh was shifted to hospital by Gurpreet Singh. At 8:00 a.m, intimation was sent to Police Station Lambi and at that time, Nazar Singh was not in the police station. On receipt of information from Gurraj Singh and after recording his statement at 9:30 a.m, Nazar Singh had gone to the place of occurrence not to PHC Lambi Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [36] because ruqa from PHC, Lambi was sent to Police Station Lambi. In case statement of Jaspreet Kaur was not recorded while preparing inquest reports then no reason to doubt the prosecution story because supplementary statement of Gurraj Singh was recorded while preparing inquest reports.
In the present case, no dispute qua the occurrence and about the dead bodies because defence version of the appellants is that in self-defence injuries were caused and Complainant-party was the aggressor. The only dispute is whether the occurrence was witnessed by Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur. But their presence at the spot of occurrence was natural because new tube well was to be operated for the first time, statement of Gurraj Singh is not to be ignored simply on the allegation that he is residing at village Killianwali, where his wife is serving as a teacher in the light of report Ex.PFF.
Occurrence was also witnessed by Darshan Singh and Guri. Guri received stray pellets when Narinderpal Singh fired a shot with his 12 bore gun hitting Sukhdev Singh. Darshan Singh and Guri were `seeris' but they were not examined. When the occurrence is witnessed by number of persons then prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses. Quality of evidence is to be seen not the quantity of evidence. Guri and Darshan Singh were given up as Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [37] won over by the appellants. They being poor people can not afford to depose against the appellants. Seeris were also with Narinder Pal Singh when caused injuries in self-defence but they were not produced in defence. With the non-examination of both the labourers, entire story is not to be brushed aside.
Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that FIR is inquest oriented. Firstly injuries were noticed by the Investigating officer and then statements of the eye witnesses were recorded. We are not in a position to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants because if the story was to be concocted then statement of Jaspreet Kaur could easily be recorded at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m because statement of Gurraj Singh was recorded at 9:30 a.m but after that inquest reports were to be prepared. Occurrence was during day time near the fields of the appellants and the complainant-party. Post mortem examinations were conducted in between 4:15 p.m & 6:00 p.m but before the post mortem examinations, special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 1:30 p.m. If the statement of Gurraj Singh would have been recorded after the inquest reports or post mortem examinations then Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur would have given the sequence of the injuries. In the FIR, sequence of the injuries were not disclosed by Gurraj Singh as per inquest or post mortem reports. There were six persons from the side of the complainant-party i.e Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [38] four deceased and two seeris and seven persons from the side of the appellants besides their seeris. One of the appellants was armed with a pistol and second with a gun. There was a firing. Two injuries were noticed on the person of Gamdoor Singh, three injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh, seven injuries on the person of Jagwinder Singh and five injuries on the person of Gurlal Singh. Four type of injuries were noticed. Some of the injuries were caused with a pistol, some with a gun, some with a sharp edged weapon and some with a blunt weapon. When there was firing then the witnesses were not in a position to notice from a distance of 25-30 karams that first injury was caused with a pistol, second with a gandasa, third with a gun and fourth with a dang. In case of a firing with different weapons, even close relations try to fled away from the spot, particularly, when one of the eye witnesses was a lady and two were seeris. If the occurrence was not as per prosecution story, then Guri or Darshan Singh could easily be produced in defence. As per defence version, Harpreet Singh was also present on the spot but he failed to appear in defence. Narinder Pal Singh and Harpreet Singh fired in self- defence with gun and pistol. Narinder Pal Singh, Iqbal Singh or Harpreet Singh were not armed with gandsa and dangs then question is, if as per defence version, Narinder Pal Singh and Harpreet singh had fired in self-defence then how incised/lacerated wounds were noticed on the person of Jagwinder Singh, Gurlal Singh Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [39] and Gamdoor Singh. No case of the appellants that after firing few shots, other injuries were caused with gandasa/dangs. Minor discrepancies regarding injuries noted while preparing inquest reports and at the time of post mortem examination shows that presence of Gurraj Singh and Jaspreet Kaur at the time of occurrence is natural.
Broken gun of Sukhdev Singh was recovered from the spot. Two empties were in the gun. One missed empty cartridge of 12 bore was also recovered from the spot. C-5 and C-6 empties were found fired from gun no.5277 of Sukhdev Singh but one injury was noticed on the person of Iqbal Singh. So no explanation from the side of prosecution whether the third missed cartridge was also fired from gun no.5277 of Sukhdev Singh. According to the story, Sukhdev Singh received fire arm injury then after that he was not in a position to fire hitting Iqbal Singh but submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not genuine one because case of the prosecution is that Narinder Pal Singh fired a shot with his 12 bore double barrel gun hitting Sukhdev Singh that means only one shot was fired by Narinderpal Singh hitting Sukhdev Singh. In the supplementary statement, Gurraj Singh reported to the police that two shots were fired with a pistol by Balraj singh hitting Jagwinder Singh then Narinder Pal Singh fired a shot towards Sukhdev Singh but before receipt of fire arm injury, Sukhdev Singh while kneeling Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [40] fired a shot hitting Iqbal Singh and after that received gun shot injuries i.e why stray pellets were received by Guri who was on the back of Sukhdev Singh.
Vide memo Ex.PK/5, three empties and one bag with live cartridge was recovered. Vide memo Ex.PK/6 broken double barrel gun no.5277 with two empties and butt with six live cartridges was recovered. According to the report of the Laboratory, Ex.PNN, empty cartridge C-1 and C-3 were found fired from the right barrel of gun no.99144 and C-2 from left barrel. According to the report Ex.PMM, bullet was found fired from pistol no. 105724. Empty cartridge C-4 was also found fired from the above said pistol. Whereas empty cartridges, C-5 and C-6 were found fired from gun no. 5277. No report whether the missed cartridge recovered from the spot was fired from the gun of Sukhdev Singh or Narinder Pal Singh because Harpreet Singh was also armed with a weapon. Harpreet Singh is not one of the appellants. Nothing on the file that Harpreet Singh was armed with a gun or pistol. If he was armed with pistol as per defence version then he should have surrendered before the Court with a pistol. If no report regarding missed cartridge, then story is not be ignored because Sukhdev Singh fired twice and two empties lifted from the spot C-5 and C-6 were found fired from his gun. Three empties recovered from the spot were found fired from gun no.99144 of Narinder Pal Singh. One fire arm injury was noticed on the person Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [41] of Gurlal Singh and one injury on the person of Gamdoor Singh. Three injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh. First on the right eye second on the chest and third on the left thigh. Dr. Santokh Singh who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sukhdev Singh stated that all the injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh were possible when the victim is in firing position.
Defence counsel further submitted that presence of Gurpreet Singh, Rajpreet Singh sons of Tej Singh and Gurpal Singh is doubtful. Rajpreet Singh was named being the brother of Gurpreet Singh who had shifted Iqbal Singh to hospital. Gurpal Singh was not named in the FIR but he was implicated being the brother of Iqbal Singh deceased. Secondly, injuries alleged to have been caused by Gurpal Singh were found to be simple in nature. Gurpal Singh is a handicap up to 40%. If he was present on the spot, then Iqbal Singh (deceased) should have been shifted to PHC, Lambi by Gurpal Singh. There was no reason for the appellant, Gurpreet Singh to shift Iqbal Singh to hospital. According to the doctor, injuries attributed to Gurpreet Singh, Rajpreet Singh and Gurpal Singh are simple in nature, superficial and possible by fall. Injuries were not the cause of death. Due to enmity they were implicated but defence version of the appellants hardly carries any weight. Jagpal Singh was armed with a gandasa. Injury no.1 on the person of Gamdoor Singh, injuries no. 1 & 2 on the person of Jagwinder Singh and Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [42] injuries no. 4 & 5 on the person of Gurlal Singh being incised wounds were caused with a gandasa. Injuries no. 5, 6 and 7 on the person of Jagwinder Singh and injuries no. 2 & 3 on the person of Gurlal Singh were caused by Gurpreet Singh, Rajpreet Singh and Gurpal Singh. No doubt as per doctor, all the above said injuries were found to be simple in nature, superficial and were not the cause of death but presence of Gurpreet Singh on the spot is very much clear because as per ruqa sent by PHC, Lambi, Iqbal Singh was shifted to hospital by Gurpreet Singh. If Gurpreet Singh was not on the spot then how he had shifted Iqbal Singh to PHC, Lambi. Gurpreet Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C then simply stated that he was not present on the spot but was implicated due to party faction. He was to explain how he had shifted dead body of Iqbal Singh to PHC, Lambi.
Gurpal Singh was named in the FIR. He is the brother of Iqbal Singh. As per defence version of Narinderpal Singh, Harpreet Singh was also present on the spot and he along with Harpreet Singh had fired with gun and pistol in self-defence. Harpreet Singh failed to appear in defence to state that Gurpal Singh was not present on the spot, in fact he along with Narinder pal Singh and Iqbal Singh were on the spot while irrigating the land and when the complainant-party tried to restrain them from using water course then in self-defence they had caused injuries. Evidence shows that on the previous night, Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [43] there was moderate rain and water was in the water course. When there was rain then no question of possibility of injuries by fall. According to the post mortem reports, some of the injuries are on the front side and some of the injuries are on the back. Some injuries on the back and some on the front side are not possible by fall, particularly, when there was rain on the previous night. Allegation of Gurpreet and Rajpreet is that Harpreet Kaur is the cousin of Jaspreet Kaur and was married with Gurpreet Singh in the year 1996. Jaspreet Kaur and her husband, Jagwinder Singh were the mediators. Ring of gold was given to Jagwinder Singh whereas only clothes were given to Jaspreet Kaur. Due to this reason, Jagwinder Singh felt offended but due to this reason that ring not given to Jaspreet Kaur, there was no reason to name Gurpreet Singh or Rajpreet Singh. When presence of Gurpreet Singh at the time of occurrence is an admitted fact as per ruqa Ex.PH because he had shifted Iqbal Singh to PHC, Lambi.
Defence version of Narinderpal Singh is that, he along with Iqbal Singh and Harpreet Singh was irrigating land through water course, when four deceased came and attacked them. Sukhdev Singh fired a shot hitting Iqbal Singh. After that he again fired towards Narinderpal Singh and Harpreet Singh but they escaped. Then he (Narinderpal Singh) and Harpreet Singh fired in defence with gun and pistol that means except three persons i.e Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [44] Narinderpal Singh and Iqbal Singh and Harpreet Singh, no one from the appellants-side was present. Regarding death of Iqbal Singh report Ex.PFF was lodged by Gurpreet Singh son of Gurmander Singh at about 8:00 a.m. Report is to the effect that he was near the farmhouse of Baldev Singh. There was a gathering then came to know that Gurraj Singh, Iqbal Singh armed with 12 bore guns had fired at each other. Iqbal Singh fired at Sukhdev Singh. Gurraj Singh fired at Iqbal Singh. After that out of fear, he came back to village Middu Khera. Gurpreet Singh is the nephew of Narinder Pal Singh, appellant. But statement of Gurpreet Singh was found to be false after investigation. No cross-case was registered against Gurraj Singh regarding the murder of Iqbal Singh. After the cross-version was found to be false then appellants should have filed private complaint. But till today, no private complaint has been filed. No question why appellants remained silent when Iqbal Singh from other side on receipt of fire arm injuries at the hands of Gurraj Singh had died on the spot. No suggestion to any witness that there is no person, namely, Gurpreet Singh son of Gurmanader Singh in village Middu Khera or Gurpreet Singh is not the nephew of Narinder Pal Singh and cousin (brother) of Iqbal Singh. Ex.PFF at the instance of Gurpreet Singh shows the presence of Gurraj Singh at the time of occurrence and firing of two shots by Sukhdev Singh.
Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [45] is that there was no motive to commit the crime. In fact the appellants were irrigating land through the water course. Complainant-party restrained them from using the water course then in self-defence, injuries were caused. Motive was with the complainant-party to implicate the appellants. But submission of the learned counsel for the appellants carries no weight because complainant-party had installed a new tube well to irrigate the land. On the day of occurrence, they were to irrigate their fields with the tube well for the first time. No copy of "barabandi" on the file that at the time of occurrence, appellants had turn of water. If the appellants had not the turn of water then there was no question to use the water course. There was a dispute regarding use of the water course to irrigate the land. Motive is a double edged weapon but motive looses significance when there is direct evidence of the eye witnesses. Motive assumes importance when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. When the appellants had no turn of water then they had the motive to commit the crime. Occurrence is an admitted fact as per defence version but there are four causalities from the side of complainant-party. If complainant-party was restraining the appellants from using the water course then why injuries were caused on the vital parts. By firing in the air or on the non-vital parts, appellants could easily scare away the complainant- party. Why fire arm injuries and injuries with gandasa and dangs Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [46] were repeated. When new tube well was being installed then appellants had the knowledge that water course is to be used to irrigate the land. Then at the initial stage, they should request the complainant-party or report to the Panchayat. But no request to panchayat or to any authority. When for the first time, tube well was to be operated on the day of occurrence to irrigate the land. Then appellants came in three cars and after committing the crime had fled away from the spot. Later on those cars were taken into police possession. Suppose we presume that there was no motive even then story is not be ignored when the occurrence was witnessed by the eye witnesses and their presence at the spot was natural.
For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No reason to disagree with the trial Court. Judgment is to be set aside if the same is perverse and against law and facts.
Four causalities from the side of the complainant-party and one from the side of the appellants. Appellants and the complainant-party had common ancestor, namely, Chatar Singh. Occurrence was regarding use of water course. Earlier to the occurrence there was no enmity amongst the parties. From the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that present case is not one of the rarest of the rare to award capital punishment. Crl. Appeal No.763-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.802-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 Crl. Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 and Crl. Revision No.2629 of 2004 [47] In the light of above discussion Criminal Appeal No. 763- DB of 2004 filed by Balraj Singh son of Balvir Singh and Jagpal Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 802-DB of 2004 filed by Gurpreet Singh @ Gauri and Rajpreet Singh @ Lalli sons of Tej Singh, Criminal Appeal No.824-DB of 2004 filed by Narinder Pal Singh @ Moti son of Jagjit Singh, Criminal Appeal No.918-DB of 2004 filed by Gurpal Singh, Criminal Appeal No.58-DB of 2005 filed by State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No.2629 of 2004 filed by Gurraj Singh son of Gamdoor Singh are dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
March 3, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ritu JUDGE