Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jugraj Singh Alias Bhola Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 August, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008
Date of Decision: August 31, 2012
Jugraj Singh alias Bhola Singh
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Akshay Jain, Advocate
Legal Aid Counsel,
for the appellant.
Ms.Ritu Punj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 19.08.2008, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
The prosecution story in brief is that Balihar Singh alias Chhina was sleeping in the compound of his house along with his Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -2- children and wife Harvinder Kaur. Gurcharan Singh, brother-in-law of Balihar Singh, who had come to meet his sister was sleeping in the verandah. At about 2.30 A.M.-3.00 A.M. on the intervening night of 20/21.04.2007, Harvinder Kaur raised shrieks, whereupon, Gurcharan Singh-complainant woke up and they saw Jugraj Singh @ Bhola, who had been the partner in cultivation with Balihar Singh, was inflicting blows with Kulhari (Axe) on the head of the Balihar Singh, who was sleeping in the mosquito net. When the complainant raised alarm and tried to catch hold Jugraj Singh @ Bhola-appellant, he along with Kulhari slipped away. Balihar Singh received deep injuries on his head and was bleeding and had became unconscious. On immediate call of Harvinder Kaur, Jagraj Singh, brother of Balihar Singh, and other neighbourers came there. After making arrangement of a vehicle, they took Balihar Singh to Civil Hospital, Barnala, where Doctor after giving first aid referred Balihar Singh to PGI, Chandigarh. The motive behind the occurrence is that Jugraj Singh-appellant was suspecting some days back that Balihar Singh had an evil eye on his wife and on that score, there was some altercation between them. The dispute was settled at that time but Jugraj Singh-appellant kept the grudge in his mind.
After receiving wireless message from SHO, P.S.City Barnala, that Balihar Singh was admitted in Civil Hospital, Barnala and further referred to PGI, Chandigarh, thereupon, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, SHO, P.S. Dhanaula along with police party reached village Kattu, where the statement of Gurcharan Singh-complainant was Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -3- recorded. The ruqa was sent to police station at 9.15 A.M. and the FIR was registered. PW-1 Dr.Parvesh Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala, who medico legally examined Balihar Singh at about 5.15 A.M. on 21.04.2007, found following injuries:-
(i) Incised wound 15 cm x 6 cm on left side of forehead and scalp. On scalp 9 cm from pinna of left ear. On forehead in the midline. Fractured bone pieces lying in the wound. Brain matter coming out. Clotted blood present.
(ii) Incised wound 5.8 cm x 1 cm on the right side of scalp and upper part of pinna of right ear bone deep 10 cm from midline and 7 cm behind anterior hairline. Clotted blood was present.
(iii) Incised wound 1.5 cm x .1 cm on left side of forehead. 2 cm above lateral end of left eye brow 6 cm from midline. X-ray was advised for all the three injuries and for injury No.1, surgical opinion was sought.
Thereafter, Balihar Singh was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The I.O. also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. Blood was lifted from the spot. Articles, one chaddar, mosquito net, khes, towel, pair of slipper, parna were taken into possession after preparing sealed parcel. On 22.04.2007, a message was received from PGI, Chandigarh regarding the death of Balihar Singh and offence under Section 302 IPC was registered. On 22.04.2007, the accused-appellant was produced by Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch etc. and he was arrested. On 23.04.2007, on interrogation, the accused-appellant made disclosure statement and then in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered Kulhari, which after preparing sketch and sealed parcel, was taken into police Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -4- possession. On 24.04.2007, the clothes of the accused-appellant, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, were taken in police possession.
After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. Finding prima facie case, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Parvesh Kumar, who mainly deposed regarding medico legally examination of Balihar Singh (deceased). He also deposed that weapon used was sharp for all the injuries. He has seen the Kulhari and opined that all the three injuries can be caused by this weapon. PW-2 Gurcharan Singh-complainant mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-3 Harvinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, is also eye witness and deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 Dr.S.P.Mandal, who conducted post mortem on the dead body, mainly deposed that on 23.04.2007, he performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Balihar Singh and found following injuries:-
(i) Oblique incised wound 13.5 x 4 cm present on frontal region on the scalp started just above the medial end of right eye brow going back ward and left side upto 11.00 cm abvoe the left year pinna. The margins of this wound was contused and clean cut. Both the angles were acute and infiltrated with blood and blood clots. On exploration underlying frontal bone and left orbital bones fractured in multiple pieces, a clean cut injury corresponding to the length of wound.
(ii) Vertical incised wound 5 x 1.1 cm was present on Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -5- right frontal temporal region of the scalp started 6 cm back and 4 cm right from lateral end of right eye brow. Margins were contused and clean cut. On exploration a depress fracture 3.5 x 3 x 0.4 cm was present on right temporal bone and a clean cut bone injury 4 cm started lower portion of the depressed fracture goes down wards.
(iii) Oblique incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm x bone deep was present on left side forehead just above the middle of left eye brow. The margins were clean out .
(iv) Swelling deformative of both side face with multiple fracture of the both maxillary bones.
Doctor gave the opinion that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injuries. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. PW-5 ASI Jagdeep Singh mainly deposed regarding investigation, as he joined police party on 21.04.2007 headed by Inspector Rajesh Kumar. He also deposed that on 22.04.2007, he had conducted inquest proceedings and on 23.04.2007, he submitted the application for conducting post mortem of the dead body of Balihar Singh (deceased). PW-6 Head Constable Tek Chand is formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PJ. PW-7 Inspector Rajesh Kumar, SHO, P.S. Dhanaula, mainly deposed regarding investigation of the case. PW-8 ASI Malkit Singh mainly deposed regarding arrest of the accused-appellant, who as produced by Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch etc. He also deposed regarding disclosure statement and on interrogation recovery of Kulhari by the accused- appellant and then he also deposed regarding taking of blood stained clothes of the accused, which he was wearing at time of occurrence. Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -6- PW-9, Constable Jatinder Kumar, is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PQ. PW-10 Kala Singh, is the photographer, who mainly deposed regarding photographs. PW-11 Dr.Ramesh, mainly deposed regarding death summary of Balihar Singh (deceased).
At the close of the evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself innocent. He also stated that Balihar Singh and Ranjit Singh alias Bogha were close friends. They use to keep evil eye on his wife. Balihar Singh was murdered by some unknown person and Ranjit Singh, in order to clear his way to continue his relations with his wife, has falsely involved him in this case. He further stated that Ranjit Singh called complainant-Gurcharan Singh and Harvinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, from the village and got recorded the FIR.
On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant Jugraj Singh was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record carefully.
Learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. A reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case as PWs have concealed the fact regarding taking Balihar Singh (deceased) to DMC, Ludhiana. Secondly, the material witnesses were not Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -7- examined. In the present case, Bikkar Singh, who was witness to recovery of Kulhari as per recovery memo, has been given up by the prosecution and similarly, Jagtar Singh, who was immediately called at the time of occurrence as per the prosecution version, has also not been examined. Similarly, Buta Singh and Jagraj Singh, from whose house the Kulhari was recovered, were also not examined, which create reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that presence of eye witnesses is doubtful at the spot. The statement of Harvinder Kaur has been recorded later on and the witnesses are unreliable witnesses. The defence counsel further contended that defence version is probable, which is supported by judgment Ex.D1.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State has argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the eye witnesses, who were present in the house and the presence of Harvinder Kaur being wife, cannot be doubted in any way. She also argued that the recovery has been proved by the official witnesses. Jagtar Singh has not seen the occurrence, therefore, he has not been examined. She also argued that there is no evidence on record that the accused has been falsely implicated. The mere fact that PWs have omitted to depose regarding taking Balihar Singh to DMC, Ludhiana, is immaterial in view of the eye witness account. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab further argued that the defence version is not probable. The judgment Ex.D1 in no way creates any doubt in Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -8- the prosecution version as that case was based on extra judicial confession and the accused has been acquitted in that case as prosecution failed to prove extra judicial confession etc. Therefore, she argued that appeal should be dismissed having no merit.
As regarding first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that there is no cogent evidence on record nor any reason or ground has been given to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. The motive has been alleged against Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he is not a complainant nor the affected party. Why the wife of Balihar Singh (deceased) and Gurcharan Singh-complainant will depose falsely against the accused-appellant. Similarly, there is also nothing on record that why the police officials will depose falsely against the accused-appellant or will show any false recovery etc. from the accused. In the absence of any material on record or anything in the cross-examination of PWs, it cannot be held that accused-appellant is innocent or has been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.
As regards next contention that PWs have not deposed regarding shifting Balihar Singh first to DMC, Ludhiana, will in no way, can be held as fatal to the prosecution case. This omission is immaterial in view of the statements of the witnesses. Even, Dr.Parvesh Kumar, PW-1 has deposed that patient (Balihar Singh) was allegedly brought from DMC, Ludhiana with no records. The Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -9- occurrence took place at 2.30 A.M. or 3.00 A.M. and the patient was brought to the Civil Hospital, Barnala at 5.15 A.M. and at that time all the scalp wounds were bandaged. The prosecution has not concealed this material fact. Nowhere, the witnesses have denied that Balihar Singh was not taken to DMC, Ludhiana. It is possible that due to one or the other reason, they were unable to admit Balihar Singh to DMC, Ludhiana and therefore, they brought him back to Civil Hospital, Barnala. No reasonable doubt exists on this ground in the prosecution case. Further, we find that as per prosecution case, Jagtar Singh has not seen the occurrence. He was called after the occurrence by Harvinder Kaur, therefore, he was not the material witness and no adverse inference can be drawn for his non-examination. Similarly, as regarding Bikkar Singh, who was witness to the alleged recovery of Kulhari (Axe), we again find that already the Investigating Officer Inspector Rajesh Kumar and ASI Malkit Singh, who was with the Investigating Officer, have deposed regarding the disclosure statement and then recovery of Kulhari in pursuance of the disclosure statement. There is nothing in their cross-examination to create any doubt in the prosecution version. The fact that Kulhari was recovered from the courtyard of house of Buta Singh and Jagraj Singh sons of Ishwar Singh Mistri, we find that their evidence was also not material in the present case, as it is in the disclosure statement itself that the house is lying vacant and these persons were not present at the time of recovery. Hence, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit. Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -10-
As regarding the presence of eye witnesses on the spot, we find that Harvinder Kaur is wife of the deceased and Gurcharan Singh-complainant is brother of Harvinder Kaur, who has deposed that he had come to meet his sister on the previous night and he was stated to be sleeping in the verandah. There is nothing in the cross- examination of the PWs to disbelieve their statements nor there is any document or any other evidence to show that Gurcharan Singh or Harvinder Kaur were not present in the house at the time of occurrence. The occurrence took place at about 2.30 A.M. or 3.00 A.M. at night. Wife is supposed to be present in the house and she is a natural witness. Both the PWs have deposed that Balihar Singh and Harvinder Kaur with children were sleeping in the courtyard and Gurcharan Singh was sleeping in the verandah. Both the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. There are no material contradictions or improvements, which may go to the roots of the case. Therefore, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant has also no merit.
As regarding the defence version, we find that first of all no DWs have been examined. The defence version is given by way of suggestion and also in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence version cannot be held as probable and there is nothing on record that why PWs, especially the police officials, will depose falsely against the accused-appellant at the instance of Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch. There is nothing on the record that in any way Harvinder Kaur or Gurcharan Singh were under the influence of Ranjit Singh, Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -11- Sarpanch. There is only one accused in the present case. Why the PWs will depose falsely against the accused-appellant and will allow to let off the actual culprit. The copy of the judgment Ex.D1, nowhere makes defence version probable. The accused-appellant was also arrested in that case on the basis of extra judicial confession made before Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch etc. and extra judicial confession has not been proved in that case by the prosecution. Therefore, the accused-appellant was acquitted in that case. In the present case, the occurrence is of about 2.30 A.M. or 3.00 A.M. Injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Barnala at 5.15 A.M. and after recording statement, the ruqa was sent at about 9.15 A.M. and the accused-appellant is named in the FIR. There is no question of false implication at the instance of Ranjit Singh, Sarpanch. The FIR is prompt one and there is no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR as the injured (Balihar Singh) was taken to DMC, Ludhiana and then brought to Civil Hospital, Barnala and thereafter he was referred and taken to PGI, Chandigarh. Therefore, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.
From the evidence on record, we find that PW-2 Gurcharan Singh and PW-3 Harvinder Kaur, eye witnesses to the occurrence have consistently deposed regarding the occurrence. The oral statements are duly supported by medical evidence and the investigation of the case. There are no material contradictions or improvements in their version, which may go to the roots of the case. The witnesses are truthful and reliable witnesses. Recovery of Criminal Appeal No.D-939-DB of 2008 -12- blood-stained Kulhari, as per the disclosure statement of the accused-appellant also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. As per the FSL report, Kulhari was stained with human blood. The doctor has also stated that with the Kulhari Ex.P1, all the three injuries can be caused. Further, as per PW-8 ASI Malkit Singh and PW-7 Inspector Rajesh Kumar, blood-stained clothes, which the accused-appellant was wearing at the time of occurrence, were also taken into possession. This evidence also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The motive in the present case is also there that the accused-appellant was suspecting that Balihar Singh was having evil eye on the wife of the accused-appellant and there was dispute regarding this, some time earlier to the occurrence, which was settled at that time but the accused-appellant has kept the grudge in his mind.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence and no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version and the trial court, while relying upon the evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment/order, passed by the trial court, is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
August 31, 2012
Vgulati