Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasmel Singh @ Gurmel Singh @ Tota & Ors vs The State Of Punjab on 2 August, 2013
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M)
with
CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 02, 2013.
Jasmel Singh @ Gurmel Singh @ Tota & Ors.
..Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Punjab
...Respondent(s)
Crl. Revision No.117 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision:August 02, 2013.
Rani
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Simrandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the appellants in CRA No.D-735-DB of 2003.
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR No.117 of 2006.
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
Sunil
2013.08.14 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M)
with
CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -2-
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. This judgment would dispose of Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 bearing title Jasmel Singh @ Gurmel Singh @ Tota and others Vs. State of Punjab and Crl.Revision No.117 of 2006 bearing title Rani Vs. The State of Punjab and others.
2. A case bearing FIR No.98 was registered at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala under Sections 302, 306, 326, 460 and 34 IPC on 15.11.2001. Appellants Jasmel Singh along with Rajinder Singh and Jeon Singh, residents of Village Cheema were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 460 IPC. In case of non payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Jasmel Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Harjinder Singh and Jeon Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -3- undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Accused Jasmel died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal as against him stands abated.
3. It is necessary now to give the factual score. Jasmel Singh and Gurdev Singh deceased were real brothers. The incident took place on Diwali night on 14.11.2001 at 9:00 P.M. in village Cheema. Rani wife of Gurdev lodged a report with the police at 2:00 A.M on 15.11.2001. and disclosed that relations between her husband and his brother were not cordial on account of dispute relating to partition of land Jasmel had earlier murdered his other brother Gurmel Singh and his widow had already left the village. The complainant had disclosed that Jasmel Singh had returned to the house after his acquittal and had started threatening her husband as his two sisters had given their land on lease to her husband Gurdev Singh. Giving an account of the incident, the complainant disclosed that she along with her husband after having dinner were sitting in the courtyard with Hardev Singh PW5, the son of her husband's mother's sister. The lights of the house were on. The courtyard of the house was well lit. They saw Jasmel @ Tota armed with a gandasi entering the courtyard along with Jinder Singh and Jeon Singh who were also armed with gandasi. Immediately upon entering the house, they started inflicting injuries upon her husband. The Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -4- complainant had further submitted that Jinder and Jeon Singh were her neighbourors. Jeon Singh and Jinder stopped after inflicting some injuries but her brother-in-law Tota Singh continued inflicting injuries the head of her husband attacking his legs, arms and particularly on the head. She stated that she and Hardev Singh tried to intervene and she was pushed while an injury was given on Hardev's arm and thereafter they fled away. The complainant took her husband to the Civil Hospital Barnala where he was declared dead. The complainant alongwith Sukhdev, the Panch of the village went to lodge a report. Rani had got Hardev admitted in the hospital. The FIR was formally lodged at 2:20 A.M. The special report reached the Magistrate at 3:15 P.M. on 15.11.2001. The police arrested the accused. The gandasi was recovered and after completion of investigation, the challan was filed in the Court against all the accused.
4. Charge was framed against all the accused to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined Rani PW4 who is the complainant and Hardev PW5 who supported the prosecution case and the Investigating Officers and the Medical Officers Dr. Suresh Kumar PW1 and Dr. Surinder Kumar PW2.
6. The accused abjured the trial and pleaded false implication. Accused Jasmel Singh deposed that it was Diwali night and people were moving in drunken condition and his Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -5- brother Gurdev was found dead in the street and Sukhdev Singh Ex-Sarpanch was inimical towards him had called the police who arrived on the scene around 7:00/7:30 P.M. and no-one knew how the incident had occurred. He stated that on the asking of Sukhdev Singh, the sisters and brother-in-law of Gurdev were summoned from Barnala and Sikha and he was named after deliberations and the FIR was fabricated. He stated that he was known by the name of Gurmel Singh and not Jasmel or Tota Singh. He stated that his brother Jasmel was previously murdered by some persons and Hardev and Rani were false witnesses.
7. Harjinder and Jeon Singh took the same plea that it was a blind murder and Sukhdev Singh was inimical and the sisters and brother-in-law were called and a false story was fabricated and the recovery was planted.
8. In defence, the accused had summoned Gurpal Singh MHC DW1 who brought the register and stated that according to entry Ex.DC, a gandasa was deposited with them on 23.11.2001 and another gandasa was deposited on 05.12.2001 and third gandasa was deposited on 07.12.2001. He stated that there was no entry that any objection was raised by the laboratory with respect to the case property. Kuljit Singh DW2 was working as a Clerk with a Lawyer. He had deposed about the application that was moved by the lawyer. Copy of the judgment Ex.DA and the statement Ex.DB were tendered in defence.
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -6-
9. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and with their assistance, minutely gone through the record.
10. The first and the foremost contention made by the counsel representing the appellants was that motive has been set up by the prosecution but it is a double edged weapon which can be used both ways. It was urged that Harjinder Singh and Jeon Singh were neighbours of Gurdev and there was no reason for them to join hands with Jasmel. It was vehemently urged that Harjinder was a witness in the first FIR in which Jasmel was subsequently acquitted and Rani alongwith the Ex-Sarpanch wanted to usurp the property and therefore, had named him. It was urged that the FIR was recorded after due deliberations after five hours and it was ante-timed and the special report reached the Magistrate at 3:15 P.M. It was contended that Hardev was a interested witness as he was closely related and he was interested in the property and had tried to falsely implicate appellant No.1. It was urged that Rani was a interested witness and she was not married to Gurdev and was a stranger. It was contended that the Investigating Officer had not joined the neighbours and he was candid enough to admit the reason.
On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant had urged that the trial Court had not awarded any compensation and compensation be awarded and the judgment be confirmed.
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -7- The counsel representing the State had urged that it was an eye-witness account and the two eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the number of injuries caused show that the assailants had come with a determined mind and they butchered Gurdev Singh and it was not a handiwork of a single person.
11. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined Rani PW4. She was married to one Gurbachan Singh who had died and after his death she had married Gurdev Singh. She stated that Gurdev had another brother Bhola who was murdered by Jasmel Singh accused as he wanted to usurp the land. She deposed that her husband's two sisters had given the land to Gurdev Singh and therefore, Jasmel was nursing a grudge against her husband and on Diwali night, when she alongwith her husband and Hardev Singh were sitting in the courtyard, Tota Singh alongwith Jeon Singh and Jinder came armed with gandasa and caused injuries upon her husband. She stated that she and Hardev tried to intervene but Jinder pushed her and injury was inflicted upon Hardev with a gandasa and thereafter, the accused fled from the spot. She stated that they took Gurdev Singh to the Hospital immediately and he was declared dead and she got admitted Hardev Singh in the hospital and later on made a statement Ex.PL to the police.
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -8-
12. Hardev Singh PW5 supported the statement of Rani complainant. He stated that he was residing with Gurdev Singh and was related to him being mother's sister's son. He stated that Jasmel Singh was also known as Tota and he was real brother of Gurdev Singh. He gave a vivid account of the incident. He stated that Jasmel wanted to usurp the land and he had already murdered his one brother and he was a witness in the earlier murder case also.
13. Dr. Suresh Kumar, Medical Officer PW1 had examined Hardev Singh on 14.11.2001. He was brought to the hospital by Rani w/o Gurdev Singh at 10:30 P.M. The following injuries were noted by him:-
"Incised bleeding wound 3 cm. X 1/2 cm. X bone deep with diffuse swelling on the antero-lateral aspects of upper 1/3rd of right upper arm. Wound was obliquely in direction. Corresponding tear present in the shirt (Kurta). Shirt was blood stained. Kurta signed, sealed and handed over to police. Injury was subjected for x-ray examination."
The medical Officer had noted that the injury on the person of Hardev Singh was grievous in nature and it could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like gandasi.
14. Dr. Surinder Kumar Garg, Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Barnala PW2 deposed that the dead body of Gurdev Singh was brought to the Hospital at 10:15 A.M. on 15.11.2001 and he had found 17 injuries which were as follows:-
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -9-
1. Incised wound 13 cms. X 4 cms. X bone deep present over the middle of left fore-arm. Wound was running obliquely, starting over the middle of anterior surface, passing along the medial border and going upwards on the posterior surface. Wound was gaping. Clotted blood was present. On dissection underlying muscles and bones (uena bone) were torn and fractured.
2. Incised wound 8 cms. X 3 cms. X bone deep starting from lateral border of left fore-arm 2 cms. above the wrist, running obliquely, over the front of lower part of left fore-arm, upwards 7 cms. above the wrist. Wound was gaping. On dissection, underlying muscles were torn and radius bone was fracture.
3. Incised wound 1.5 cm. X 1 cm. present horizentally over the dorsum of left wrist.
4. Incised gaping wound, 4 cms. X 2 cm. X bone deep present on the posterior aspect of left fore-arm, running slightly obliquely.
5. Incised gaping wound 6 cms. X 1 cm. present horizentally over the upper part of left leg, 4 cms. below the left knee. Underlying tibial tuberosity fractured.
Wound was tailing off medially.
6. Incised wound 3 cms. X 1 cm. semi-circular in shape rasing the flap of skin and present on the left medial malleolus.
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -10-
7. Incised wound 2.5 cm. X 1 cm. X bone deep, running obliquely over the anterio. Medial aspect of lower part of right leg, 9 cms. above the right medial malleoulus going upward and laterally on the front of right leg.
8. Incised gaping wound 7 cms. X 2 cms. X bone deep present over the left mastoid region of head starting 2 cms. behind the left ear, running posteriorly horizentally and medially. Underlying mastoid (left) and occipital bones were fractured the segments were gaping, thus exposing the left posterior cranial fossa with protrusion of brain matter.
9. Incised gaping wound 2 cms. X 1 cm. present over the mastoid region of head, starting 1 cm. away from the middle of injury No.8, and going backwards merging with the posterior end of injury No.8. Piece of skin and scalp intervening injury No.8 and 9 was hanging loosely.
10. Incised gaping wound 5 cms. X 2 cms. X bone deep present over the left parietal region of head, 2 cms. above injury No.9. Wound was horizentally placed.
11. Incised gaping wound 4 cms. X 2 cms. X bone deep present 2 cms. above injury No.10, emerging anteriorly with the anterior end of injury No.10.
12.Incised gaping wound 8 cms. X 2 cms. present on the left parietal region of head 6 cms. left of midline. Wound was running horizentally and anterior-posteriorly. Underlying parietal bone was fractured.
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -11-
13. Incised gaping wound 8 cms. X 2 cms. present on the left parietal region of head, 2 cms. medial to injury No.12, underlying parietal bone was fractured.
14. Incised bleeding wound 4 cms. X 1 cm. X bone deep, vertically placed over the left frontal region of head, starting from hair line and was placed 5 cms. left of midline. Clotted blood was present.
15. Incised gaping wound 2 cms. X 1 cm. x bone deep present over the left front parietal region of head, running obliquely 3 cms. Left of injury No.14.
16.Abrasion semi circular in shape 4 cms. X 1 cm. present on the left of abdomen, 5 cms. away from umbilicus.
17.Abrasion 2 cms. X 1 cm. present on the left elbow.
Dissection of head:- on dissection, left parietal, left occipital and left mastoid bones were badly fractured, exposing the underlying brain tissue, which were pretruding through the wounds and was contused"
The medical Officer had noted that there was semi- digested food and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. and the probable time between the injuries and death could be immediate or some minutes.
15. Rakesh Bansal PW3 had prepared the scaled site plan. The Investigating Officers Sanjiv Goel PW8, Harbhajan Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -12- Singh, ASI PW9, Swaran Singh PW10, Amarjit Singh PW7 and Gulab Singh PW12 had investigated the case and had arrested the accused and they had disclosed that the accused were interrogated and they had suffered disclosure statements and had got the weapons recovered. Report of FSL Ex.PKK and Ex.PLL were tendered in evidence. Blood was detected on the gandasi which was contained in parcel-A, parcel-B and parcelC.
16. The first and foremost argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the story was concocted so as to frame Jasmel. As per the prosecution story, the incident took place at 9:00 P.M. in the house of Gurdev on Diwali night. The house was well lit on account of Diwali. Hardev PW5 had suffered injury. He was admitted in the hospital at 10:30 P.M. by Rani. Her name figures in the MLR. The injured had reached the hospital within one and a half hour of the incident. Gurdev was also taken to the hospital by Rani. The counsel representing the State had urged that the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained.
Before we proceed to advert to the contention, it is necessary to refer to the case law about the delay.
In Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu 1973 AIR 501, 1972 SCR (3) 622 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -13- "The first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced a' the trial The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as, the names of eye witnesses present at there scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a Creature of after thought. It is therefore essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."
17. Keeping in view of the above enunciation of law, we have to scrutinize whether there was real delay in lodging the FIR and whether it creates a dent in the prosecution version or not? The FIR is Ex.PL which was registered at 2:20 A.M. Rani had made a statement at 2:00 A.M. The argument put forward on behalf of the appellants was that Rani and Hardev were both interested in implicating Jasmel and they had been called from the village and the First Information Report got delayed for the reason that the witnesses came from another station and it took time and the FIR was lodged after deliberating with the Ex-Sarpanch. But it is not so. Rani had brought Hardev to the hospital at Barnala. Her presence is recorded in the MLR which is at 10:30 P.M. Hardev was in the hospital. Rani was also in the hospital and the doctors had sent intimation to the police. The hospital is situated at Barnala. The incident had taken place at village Cheema. The wife would have taken time to compose herself which is a normal human conduct. Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -14- The prosecution has sufficiently explained the delay, the conduct of the witnesses cannot be deemed as unusual. The anxiety of the wife would have been to first proceed straight to the hospital for medical assistance and her effort was to save Gurdev Singh. There is no delay in lodging the FIR. There is some delay in sending the special report but the prosecution case cannot be doubted merely because some official delayed in delivering the special report. The delay is not large so as to reject the entire case.
18. The prosecution witnesses have projected motive for the crime. Jasmel was named by the family for the murder of another brother but it is another matter that he was finally acquitted. Rani had deposed that Gurdev's sisters had given their share of the property to Gurdev on lease, which had annoyed Jasmel and that was the reason that he was angry. As regards the participation of Harjinder and Jeon Singh, they would only know why they had joined hands with Jasmel Singh. Motive is always in the mind of the accused and it is difficult for the prosecution to elicit it. Neither Rani nor Hardev had any enmity with the neighbours. The number of injuries that were caused could not have been the handiwork of one person. There were eight injuries on the head. The Medical Officers had noted that the injuries were caused with gandasa. The complainant knew both Jinder and Jeon Singh, they being the neighbours. There was no dispute regarding their identity. Sunil 2013.08.14 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No.D-735-DB of 2003 (O&M) with CRR No.117 of 2006 (O&M) -15-
19. The statement of the two eye-witnesses is convincing, credible and can safely be relied upon. Both of them have given a vivid narration. Their version gets support from medical evidence. The accused had got recovered the weapon which were sent to the forensic laboratory which had find human blood on the weapon. There are hardly any major discrepancies in the prosecution case so as to reject it.
20. In view of the discussion above, the appeal as against Jasmel stands abated. The judgment as against Harjinder and Jeon Singh is confirmed.
21. The complainant had prayed for compensation. The main accused has since died, therefore, we order that the fine which was ordered to be paid by the accused shall be paid as compensation to Rani (complainant). Both the appeal and the revision are dismissed.
August 02, 2013 (M.JEYAPAUL) (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
sunil JUDGE JUDGE
Sunil
2013.08.14 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document