Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Major Singh 1999(1) Rcr (Criminal) 828 ... on 26 November, 2009
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Mehtab S.Gill, Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001
Date of Decision: November 26, 2009
1.Darshan Singh,
2.Joga Singh sons of Shanga Singh and
3.Shanga Singh s/o Chhajja Singh, all r/o Beri, Tehsil and District
Gurdaspur.
.....Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mrs.Baljeet Mann, Advocate and
Mr.Amol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mrs.Gurvin H.Singh, Additional A.G., Punjab.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.
1. This is an appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.7.2001 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced as under:
(i) Accused Darshan Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -2- `IPC'), whereas Joga Singh and Shanga Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Balbir Singh and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(ii) Appellant-accused Darshan Singh, Joga Singh and Shanga Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing murder of Shiv Kaur and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(iii) Appellant-accused Shanga Singh was convicted under Section 325 IPC, whereas accused Darshan Singh and Joga Singh were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Lal Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(iv) Accused Darshan Singh was further convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC, whereas Shanga Singh and Joga Singh were convicted for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Ajit Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -3-However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that both the parties are closely related to each other. Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh, complainant, is real brother of deceased Balbir Singh and son of deceased Smt. Shiv Kaur and Lal Singh, another injured. Accused Shanga Singh and Lal Singh injured are real brothers. Accused Darshan Singh and Joga Singh are sons of accused Shanga Singh.
3. On 30.3.1998 Ajit Singh, complainant, had gone to his fields. He was returning to his house at about 9.00 a.m., when he noticed that his brother Balbir Singh (deceased) was standing on the road side, outside his house, awaiting for arrival of a bus for going to join his duty, when accused Darshan Singh armed with datar, accused Joga Singh armed with Kirpan and accused Shanga Singh armed with another kirpan came there. Shanga Singh raised lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant party for asking them to vacate the land. Thereafter, all the three accused assaulted him. Accused Darshan Singh gave datar blow on the left side of the head of Balbir Singh and after receiving the said blow, he fell down. Accused Joga Singh gave kirpan blow thrust-wise near his left ankle. Ajit Singh raised lalkara, which attracted his father Lal Singh (injured) and mother Shiv Kaur (deceased). Accused Shanga Singh gave kirpan blows on the legs and arms of Lal Singh. Joga Singh gave kirpan blows on the right leg of Balbir Singh. Accused Darshan Singh gave datar blows from its reverse side on the legs and arms of Shiv Kaur. When Ajit Singh, complainant, intervened accused Darshan Singh gave a Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -4- datar blow which hit him on the thumb of his right hand. The occurrence was also seen by Joginder Singh and Chain Singh. After causing injuries all the accused ran away with their respective weapons.
4. The injured were removed to Civil Hospital Kahnuwan, however, Balbir Singh succumbed to injuries on the way.
5. The alleged motive is that the complainant party had given 4-1/2 killas of land on batai to Shanga Singh, being brother of Lal Singh injured for the last about two years, however, Shanga Singh was not paying any batai. The possession of the land was also not delivered to the complainant party. Hence, complainant party used to demand batai from accused party. Hence, injuries were caused to them by the accused.
6. Statement Ex.PH was given by the complainant Ajit Singh to Tilak Raj, SI/ SHO, Police Station Kahnuwan, at about 10.30 a.m., on the same day, i.e. 31.3.1998, when Ajit Singh met him on the turning of Village Sathiali, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PH/2 was recorded at about 11.45 a.m.. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.15 p.m.
7. The case was initially investigated by Tilak Raj SI/SHO, Kahnuwan (PW10), with whom report Ex.PH was lodged by Ajit Singh, complainant. He visited Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan and prepared inquest report Ex.PJ on the dead body of Balbir Singh and got conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PQ. He also received message regarding death of Shiv Kaur in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. He reached there and prepared inquest report Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -5- Ex.P.K.on the dead body of Shiv Kaur. He arrested accused Darshan Singh and Shanga Singh on 1.4.1998. Accused Shanga Singh suffered disclosure statement Ex.P.R. regarding concealment of kirpan at his tubewell and he got recovered the said kirpan Ex.P1. Accused Darshan Singh also suffered disclosure statement Ex.P.S. and got recovered datar Ex.P2. He also lifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `Cr.P.C.') was filed by him against all the accused.
8. After commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, accused were charged for offences under Sections 326, 324, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
9. In order to substantiate the allegation against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses.
10. PW1 is Dr.Chandanjit Singh, who was then posted as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, on 30.3.1998 and who had given information to the police regarding the fact that Shiv Kaur wife of Lal Singh was brought dead in the hospital and that Lal Singh was lying in the hospital in injured condition vide memo Ex.PA at 1.25 p.m. He medico legally examined Lal Singh at 2.00 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:
"1.Lacerated wound four in numbers over the left lower leg. Two lacerated wounds on the front of middle of left leg and two lacerated wounds over the lower 1/3rd of leg front aspect. Injury kept for x-ray.Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -6-
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm on the antro medial aspect of right lower leg. Bone was painful. deformity was present. Wound was skin deep. Kept for x-ray.
3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 2 cm over the upper fourth of the medial aspect of right lower leg below the knee joint.
4. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the ulna side of front of right forearm lower 1/3rd. Advised for x-ray.
5. Complain of pain back of neck region. Movement of the neck painful. Advised x-ray.
6. Black left eye.
7. Clotted blood present in left nostril. Head injury. Advised x-ray skull.
8. Reddish contusion on the left upper arm with reddish abrasion 1 cm x 0.2 cm over it.
9. Complain of pain left parietal area and back of head."
11. He further deposed that injuries no.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 were kept under observation and the rest were declared simple and the weapon used was blunt. He further stated that duration of the injuries was within 24 hours. He also deposed that patient was in serious state at the time of admission and the injuries were noted in bed head ticket of the patient. He had proved correct copy of the medico legal report as Ex.PB. On receipt of x-ray report from the Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, injuries no.2 to 4 were declared grievous while injuries no.1, 5 and 7 were declared simple. He had proved his report in this regard as Ex.PC. Lal Singh was declared unfit to make statement on 30.3.1998 at 5.30 p.m. Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -7- by Dr.Daljit Singh, who was working under him, vide opinion Ex.PD.
12. PW2 is Dr.Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, who conducted x-ray examination of the injuries of Lal Singh. He had proved x-ray films as Ex.PE/1 to PE/7 and his report as Ex.PF, vide which he found fracture of upper end of right tibia, fracture of right fibula at two places in lower half and fracture of both bones of right forearm in lower half.
13. PW3 is Dr.Daljit Singh, who examined Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh, injured, on the same day, i.e., on 30.3.1998 at 3.40 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person:
"1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x .5 cm situated on the lateral aspect of the left thumb 2.5 cm proximal to its tip. Bleeding present on swabbing the wound.
2. An abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm over the dorsal aspect of the right index finger at the level of the junction of the proximal with the middle pharynx."
14. He declared both the injuries as simple in nature and having been caused with blunt weapon within the duration of 24 hours. He also deposed that smell of alcohol was present in the breath of the patient. He had proved copy of medico-legal report as Ex.PB (read as Ex.PB/1 as M.L.R. of injured Lal Singh already exhibited as Ex.PB). He also deposed that he declared injured Lal Singh unfit to make statement on 30.3.1998 at 5.30 p.m., vide his endorsement Ex.PD on application Ex.PD/1.
15. PW4 is Constable Amarjit Singh, who is a formal witness Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -8- and who had tendered in evidence affidavit of his statement Ex.PE. He had delivered the special report of this case to the Illaqa Magistrate.
16. PW5 is MHC Kuldip Kumar, who is also a formal witness and who tendered in evidence affidavit of his statement Ex.PF.
17. PW6 is ASI Sarabjit Singh, who had also tendered in evidence affidavit of his statement Ex.PG.
18. PW7 is Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh, at whose instance the present case was registered. He had narrated the whole occurrence to SI/SHO Tilak Raj (PW10). He specifically deposed that on 30.3.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. he was returning from his fields when he noticed that his brother Balbir Singh was standing on the turn of Village Suchan in order to board a bus. He clarified that the said place is at a distance of 10/15 karams from their house. He again deposed that when he reached in front of the house, he observed that accused Darshan Singh armed with datar, Joga Singh armed with kirpan and Shanga Singh armed with kirpan came there and that Shanga Singh raised lalkara to teach a lesson to his brother for getting vacated the land and that Darshan Singh gave datar blow on the head of Balbir Singh, due to which he fell down. He further deposed that Joga Singh gave a kirpan blow thrust-wise on his left ankle and that he raised alarm and that his parents also reached there in order to save him. He further deposed that his mother came forward and Darshan Singh gave datar blow from its reverse side on the legs and arms of his mother. He further deposed that when he intervened, Darshan Singh gave datar blow, which hit thumb of his left hand. He again deposed that when his father Lal Singh came forward accused Shanga Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -9- Singh gave kirpan blows on his legs and arms and that on hearing noise Joginder Singh and Chain Singh reached the spot and that accused ran away with their respective weapons. He further deposed that he removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Kahnuwan, however, his brother Balbir Singh succumbed to injuries on the way.
19. He further deposed that accused were cultivating four killas of land on Batai. However, for the last one year they did not pay any batai nor allowed them to take possession of the land and when they asked them to hand over possession of the land, injuries were caused to them. He further deposed that he got recorded his statement Ex.PH before the police at Sathiali bridge. He also deposed that inquest reports of Balbir Singh Ex.PJ and his mother Shiv Kaur Ex.PK were prepared in his presence.
20. PW8 is Lal Singh another injured. He deposed that his son Balbir Singh was to board a bus from a distance of 20 karams from his house when accused Shanga Singh armed with kirpan, Darshan Singh armed with datar and Joga Singh armed with kirpan reached there and that accused Darshan Singh gave datar blow on the head of Balbir Singh due to which he fell down. Accused Joga Singh gave kirpan blow on his leg and when his wife came running on hearing the noise, she was also caused injuries by Darshan Singh and Joga Singh. He further deposed that his son Ajit Singh had also returned from the fields and that he was also given datar blow by Darshan Singh and his thumb was chopped off. He further deposed that accused Shanga Singh gave kirpan blows on his right leg and right arm and that his right arm was cut. Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -10-
21. PW9 is Dr.H.S.Dhillon, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Shiv Kaur wife of Lal Singh on 31.3.1998 at 2.05 p.m. and found the following injuries on her person:
"1. There was diffused swelling over right temporal region measuring 6 cm x 4 cm. On dissection there was haematoma beneath scalp. On further dissection, there was fracture of right temporal bone with collection of blood in the anterior cranial fossa. The underlying brain parenchyma was contused.
2. There was swelling over right shoulder. On dissection there was fracture of the neck of humerus.
3. There was swelling with abrasion over it measuring 4 x 3 cm on the anterior aspect of middle part of right leg. The dissection revealed fracture of both bones right leg.
4. There was abrasion 6 cm x 5 cm on anterior aspect of right thigh, the dissection showed fracture of right femur in its middle part.
5 There was abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm over outer aspect of right elbow joint.
Heart. The right side of heart contained about
20 cc of blood. The left side of the heart was
empty. Lungs were healthy. Examination of
Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -11-
abdomen revealed healthy organs. The bladder
contained 100 cc of urine."
22. He further deposed that, in his opinion, the cause of death was injury to vital organ, i.e., brain with other injuries contributing which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The probable duration of injuries and death was within 12 hours and between death and post mortem was 24 to 36 hours. He had proved carbon copy of post mortem report as Ex.PK. He also deposed that the post mortem examination was conducted by him on the police request Ex.PL.
23. He further deposed that on the same day he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Balbir Singh and observed the following injuries "1. An incised wound 9 cm x 1.5 cm on middle of left parietal bone extending to the pinna of left ear. Clotted blood was present.
2. Another incised wound 8 cm x 1.5 cm extending from end of injury no.1 to midline of skull on left parietal bone. Clotted blood was present.
On dissection of injuries 1 and 2, the underlying bones were fractured with brain matter coming out of the wounds.
3. A bruise over lateral aspect of left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm in the middle part.Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -12-
4. A lacerated wound on outer aspect of left ankle joint 4 cm x 2 cm with fracture of lateral malleolus.
5. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm on medial aspect of right ankle joint. Underlying bone was intact.
Heart was healthy. Examination of abdomen
revealed healthy organs. Bladder contained about
100 cc of urine."
24. He further deposed that in his opinion the cause of death was due to injuries to vital organ, i.e., brain which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the injuries were ante mortem in nature. He further deposed that probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 6 hours and between death and post mortem within 36 hours. He had also proved carbon copy of post mortem report as Ex.PN. He further deposed that vide Ex.P.O.Lal Singh was declared fit to make statement on 31.3.1998 at 4.00 p.m. by Dr.H.S.Bajwa.
25. PW 10 is S.I.Tilak Raj, SHO Police Station Kahnuwan with whom report Ex.PH was lodged by Ajit Singh, complainant, and who investigated this case and prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., as aforementioned.
26. Statements of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the incriminating evidence against them were put to them, however, they controverted the allegations and took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
27. Accused examined Dr.Jagir Singh from Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan, as DW1, who deposed that on 30.3.1998, he was Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -13- posted as SMO at Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan besides Dr.Subhash Chander, Dr.Iqbal Singh and Dr.Balbir Singh and that they remained present in the hospital on 30.3.1998.
28. After hearing learned public prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforementioned, against which the present appeal has been filed.
29. We have heard learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab and have gone through the whole record carefully.
30. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the accused that Ajit Singh, on whose statement the present case was registered was not present at the time of the occurrence and that the injuries found on his person are self inflicted. It is further contended that injury statement was not prepared by the Sub Inspector when he allegedly recorded his statement and that his injury statement was also not prepared in Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan, whereas four doctors were posted there, as deposed by DW1. It is further contended that ocular version of the occurrence given by the witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence as the description of injuries given by the witnesses is not as per the medical evidence. It has further been contended that, in fact, Ajit Singh had gone to visit village Munan Kalan on the previous night to attend some marriage and that he had taken liquor there and had reached Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur on 30.3.1998 at 2.00 p.m., after receiving information about the occurrence. It is further contended that Ajit Singh Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -14- PW deposed that police did not come to Civil Hospital, Kahnuwan and that Tilak Raj, SI, did not make any writing regarding dead body of Balbir Singh in his presence, whereas SI Tilak Raj had prepared inquest report on the dead body of Balbir Singh in Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan in the presence of this witness.
31. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the accused that only lalkara has been attributed to accused Shanga Singh and a single injury has been attributed to accused Joga Singh, hence, it cannot be said that accused Shanga Singh and Joga Singh shared common intention with accused Darshan Singh to commit murder of Balbir Singh. It is also contended that no specific injury to deceased Shiv Kaur has been attributed to any of the accused.
32. It has further been contended that injuries were caused by some unknown persons at about 4.00 a.m. on that day and that accused were falsely named after due deliberation by the complainant party as they wanted to get possession of the land being cultivated by the accused party.
33. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned State counsel that ocular version as given by PWs Ajit Singh and Lal Singh, who also received injuries in the occurrence is duly corroborated by medical evidence and that in such type of occurrence it was not required of the witnesses to have given detail account of the injuries being caused. It is also contended that presence of both the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence is most natural as their house is situated nearby and that both the parties are closely related to each other and that there was also Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -15- motive for the accused to have caused injuries to the complainant party as accused were not giving batai of the land owned by the complainant party and that they were demanding the same.
34. As already stated above both the parties are closely related to each other. Presence of PWs Lal Singh and Ajit Singh at the place of occurrence is a natural one as their residential house is nearby. As per prosecution version Ajit Singh was returning from his fields early in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. to his house. He clarified that he had left for his field at about 7.00 a.m.. It is natural for the farmers to visit their fields early in the morning and then return to their house for having meals. Father and mother of Ajit Singh reached the place of occurrence as the same is situated just near their residential house. They supported the prosecution case on all material points. No serious discrepancy has come in the depositions of these witnesses to shatter the case of the prosecution. Hence, merely on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased, it cannot be said that no reliance can be placed upon their testimony.
35. Both the witnesses have sustained injuries. PW Lal Singh had sustained serious injuries including fractures. All the three accused were armed with sharp edged weapons. Injuries could possibly be caused with kirpan thrust-wise as well as from reverse side. Similarly injuries could be caused with datar thrust-wise as well as from reverse side. In this type of occurrence where three accused armed with weapons caused injuries to four persons, it is not expected of the injured witnesses to exactly notice and memorize as to which injury was caused by whom and Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -16- which injury was given by blunt side of weapon and which injury was given by sharp side of the weapon.
36. On this point reference can be made to State of Rajasthan vs.Major Singh 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 828 and the relevant observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.4 of the judgment reads as under:
"4. .........The High Court has further taken into consideration that prosecution witnesses have not stated exactly whether the accused inflicted injuries by a sharp or blunt side of the weapon and therefore they have not explained how the deceased as well as injured witness got incised injuries as well contusions. In our view, in holding that prosecution witnesses have not exactly stated whether the accused inflicted injury by sharp or blunt side of the weapon, the High Court has ignored the reality of such occurrence. It would be practically impossible for any injured witness to exactly notice and memorise that which accused was assaulting by blunt side of the weapon and which accused was causing injuries by sharp edged weapon. Even if such statement is made, it may amount to an exaggeration because when number of assailants are there, injuries are not inflicted in a manner which could be exactly noted by the witness. If one or two injuries are caused and if it is broad daylight, it is quite possible that some witnesses may be in a position to note it. But at about 8.30 p.m., when Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -17- the witness herself was receiving injuries, it would not be possible to note and narrate whether the accused were causing injuries to her parents by the blunt or sharp side of the weapon. The other reason which is given by the High Court is that injured witness Jeet Kaur has not stated a single specific injury on a person which could be attributed to Ukar Singh or Kulwant Singh except by vaguely stating that they assaulted her parents and had also given gandasa blows to her and, therefore, it creates a good deal of suspicion regarding participation of the Ukar Singh and Kulwant Singh in the incident. Here, also High Court ignored the fact that once the presence of the Ukar Singh or Kulwant Singh is established at the scene of offence and their participation is alleged, there was no reason to doubt the evidence of the witness."
37. Moreover the first information report in this case was promptly lodged. The occurrence allegedly took place on 30.3.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. Statement of Ajit Singh was recorded at 10.30 a.m. The special report also reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.15 p.m.. Hence, it cannot be said that Ajit Singh reached Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur at 2.00 p.m. and that version of the occurrence was concocted just to falsely implicate the accused in this case.
38. So far as motive is concerned, as there is direct evidence of the commission of the crime, motive becomes insignificant. Moreover as per prosecution version complainant party was demanding batai of the Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -18- land from the accused, however, accused were not giving batai nor were they vacating the land, hence they caused injuries to the complainant party. Motive for doing criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution to prove as the same remains into the mind of the wrong doer. Prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that there was a weak motive for the accused to have committed the crime.
39. On the point reliance is placed upon Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar 1997 AIR (SC) 1808. The relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:
"17. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 Reg v. Palmer (Shorthand Report at page 308 CCC May 1856) thus: "But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -19- to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties." Though, it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant. In Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 it was held " that is true, and where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty but absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion." In some cases, it may not be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. There may also be cases in which it is not possible to disinter the mental transaction of the accused which would have impelled him to act. No poof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation. Sometimes, it may appear that the motive established is a weak one. That by itself is insufficient to lead to any inference adverse to the prosecution."
40. As already discussed above, law is well settled that in a Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -20- murder trial merely because a witness is interested or inimical, his evidence cannot be discarded unless the same is otherwise found to be not trustworthy. On this point reliance is placed upon State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. S.Mohan Singh and another 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal)
414.
41. Further merely on the ground that Ajit Singh had denied the fact that SI Tilak Raj was present in Primay Health Centre, Kahnwan and that he prepared the inquest report on the dead body of Balbir Singh and merely on the ground that the Investigating Officer did not prepare the injury statement either at the place where complaint was lodged by Ajit Singh with him or in Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan, it cannot be said that Ajit Singh did not visit Primary Health Centre, Kahnwan. The statement of Ajit Singh was recorded by SI Tilak Raj at 10.30 a.m. in the area of Village Sathiali near the bridge on the basis of which first information report was recorded. Hence, merely on the basis of this discrepancy in the deposition of Ajit Singh PW and SI Tilak Raj, the whole case of the prosecution cannot be doubted and it cannot be said that Ajit Singh reached the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur at 2.00 p.m. on 30.3.1998 as argued by learned counsel for the accused.
42. Further merely on the ground that smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of Ajit Singh, it cannot be said that he was under
the influence of alcohol. Further even if he had taken alcohol on the previous night, it cannot be said that he did not meet SI Tilak Raj in Village Sathiali at 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence.
43. So far as defence version of accused is concerned, merely on Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -21- the ground that four doctors were posted in Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan, it cannot be said that they were present when the injured were brought there as if the doctors were available there, they must have attended the injured and prepared injury reports and there was no reason for the witnesses to say that doctors were not available at that point of time in Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan. As Balbir Singh had already succumbed to injuries, before he was brought to Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan, inquest proceedings on the dead body of Balbir Singh was conducted in Primary Health Centre, Kahnuwan by the Investigating Officer and the other injured went to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, to get the treatment as two of them were serious.
44. So far as the fact as to whether accused Shanga Singh and Joga Singh also shared common intention with accused Darshan Singh to commit murders of Balbir Singh and Shiv Kaur is concerned, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the accused that Shanga Singh was attributed only lalkara and that only single injury has been attributed to Joga Singh and hence it cannot be said that Shanga Singh and Joga Singh shared the common intention with accused Darshan Singh. All the three accused were armed with sharp edged weapons, i.e., two kirpans and one datar. Injuries have been attributed to all the three accused, caused to one or the other injured. Injuries were caused in pursuance of lalkara given by accused Shanga Singh. Hence it has rightly been held by learned trial Court that all the accused shared common intention to cause injuries to the deceased and to the injured witnesses.
45. Further merely on the ground that fatal injury on the person Crl.Appeal No.407-DB of 2001 -22- of Shiv Kaur deceased has not been specifically attributed to any of the accused by the witnesses, it cannot be said that she did not receive the said injury at the hands of any of the accused in furtherance of their common intention. Rather as per deposition of eye witnesses she also sustained injuries at the hands of the accused and as per medical evidence fatal injury was received by her over right temporal region, as already discussed above. In this type of occurrence witnesses are not supposed to state about specific injuries being caused by the accused. Hence learned trial Court has rightly held that all the three accused are liable for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing death of Smt. Shiv Kaur as well.
46. Hence, it is held that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, they were rightly convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court, as aforementioned.
47. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(Mehtab S.Gill) (Ram Chand Gupta)
Judge Judge
November 26, 2009
meenu
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No.