Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagsir Singh Alias Seera And Others vs Jagsir Singh And Proved The Copy Of ... on 17 January, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008
.....
Date of decision:17.1.2013
Jagsir Singh alias Seera and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Rattan
Lamba, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for
the respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellants-Jagsir Singh alias Seera, Randhir Singh alias Dhira, Jasvir Singh alias Taini and Maingal Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.4.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby they have been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of `50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They have also been Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [2] sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It has further been ordered that out of the amount of fine, `20,000/- would be paid as compensation to Chamkaur Singh alias Kaura PW and `2,00,000/- would be paid as compensation to legal heirs of Gian Singh (deceased).
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.11.2006 a QST was received from Police Station, Rampura to Police Station, Phul to the effect that Gian Singh son of Modan Singh had expired due to receiving injuries and Chamkaur Singh son of Nohar Singh had been admitted to Civil Hospital, Rampura due to receiving injuries. Inspector/SHO Devinder Singh along with other Police officials reached Police Station Rampura and after collecting the `Ruqa' reached Civil Hospital, Rampura where Paramjit Singh got recorded his statement to Inspector/SHO Devinder Singh. In his statement, Paramjit Singh-complainant stated that he and his brother Charanjit Singh were going on their scooter No.HRA-5275 and son of his uncle Modan Singh, namely, Gian Singh riding on his motorcycle No.CH- 01L-3629 was going from Truck Union, Rampura to Mehraj Village and when they came near the canal minor bridge, Rampura, then Chamkaur Singh alias Kaur Singh also sat behind Gian Singh on his motorcycle. The complainant was following Gian Singh, who was going ahead. At about 4.00 p.m., when they went somewhat ahead from Jhiri Mari Bhulran, a Jeep with small body came from the opposite side i.e. from the side of Village Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [3] Mehraj and hit the motorcycle of Gian Singh, who was at that time 10-15 yards from them. From the Jeep, Jagsir Singh alias Seera, Randhir Singh alias Dhira sons of Jugraj Singh, Jagsir Singh's brother-in-law Taini and Jagsir Singh's maternal uncle Maingal Singh armed with `Kirpans' alighted at once, to whom the complainant was knowing. Maingal Singh raised a `Lalkara' that Giana should not be allowed to go escape that day as he was walking out after doing the murder of their father. On this, Jagsir Singh at once gave his `Kirpan' blow on the mouth of Gian Singh while he was lying falling and Dhira gave his `Kirpan' blow on the right arm and Maingal Singh gave his `Kirpan' blow on the right heel by going to the feet side of Gian Singh. Taini brother-in-law of Seera gave his `Kirpan' blow on the left arm of Gian Singh. Dhira and Seera gave 3/3 - 4/4 blows on the mouth and head and side of the forehead with their respective `Kirpans'. As the complainant and Charanjit Singh were empty handed, so they remained away being feared and raised alarm. Chamkaur Singh after falling down from the motorcycle, kept lying on the ground due to receiving injuries. All the above four accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons in their Jeep. Gian Singh was crying due to serious injuries. Blood was oozing out from his body. They took care of Gian Singh and Chamkaur Singh at the spot for 15/20 minutes. In the meantime, Ambulance reached the spot and they hurriedly brought Gian Singh and Chamkaur Singh in Civil Hospital, Rampura in injured condition, where Gian Singh succumbed to his injuries and Chamkaur Singh was under
treatment due to receiving injuries. The motive for the crime was that some time ago Jugraj Singh father of Jagsir Singh etc. was murdered at Village Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [4] Mehraj and a case was got registered against Gian Singh aforesaid, Kewal Singh, Baldev Singh sons of Nachhattar Singh and Karnail Singh son of Kirpal Singh. Earlier Kewal Singh, Baldev Singh and Karnail Singh were arrested, but on conducting thorough investigation by the Police, it struck out the names of Gian Singh, Kewal Singh, Baldev Singh and Karnail Singh in this case being innocent and arrested the real culprits Sukhpal Singh alias Leelu and Binder Singh. Gian Singh was not arrested by the Police finding him innocent but Jagsir Singh etc., whose father had been murdered, were openly saying if Gian Singh is not arrested by the Police, they would take revenge of the murder of their father by committing his murder. The statement of the complainant was completed at 8.45 p.m. on 22.11.2006. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered.
The dead body of Gian Singh was lying in the dead house in Civil Hospital, Rampura. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report Ex.PF of dead body of Gian Singh. The dead body was handed over to HC Jora Singh and PHG Sukhdev Singh for getting post-mortem examination conducted. The Investigating Officer moved application Ex.PC to know the condition of injured Chamkaur Singh whether he was fit to make statement. On that day at 9.00 p.m., the doctor gave his opinion Ex.PC/1 and declared Chamkaur Singh unfit to make statement. Then the Investigating Officer along with Paramjit Singh and Charanjit Singh reached the spot at about 10.30 p.m. Motorcycle belonging to deceased Gian Singh was lying at the spot and one shoe of deceased was also lying there. He took into Police possession motorcycle bearing registration No.CH-01L-3629 and one shoe Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [5] of the deceased. On 23.11.2006, he also lifted blood stained earth and simple earth from the spot and taken into Police possession vide memo Ex.PJ after preparing separate parcels. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan was prepared. On 25.11.2006, the Investigating Officer received message that four accused had surrendered in the Court.
On 28.11.2006, he after getting permission from the Court, arrested all the four accused. After seeking Police remand, the Investigating Officer interrogated accused Jagsir Singh, who suffered disclosure statement Ex.PK regarding concealing of two `Kirpans' in the house of his relative. Thereafter, accused Jagsir Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement led the Police party and got recovered two `Kirpans' which were not stained with blood and were seemed to be washed. These `Kirpans' were taken into Police possession vide memo Ex.PL. Rough site plan regarding the place of recovery was also prepared. Jeep bearing No.PB-04C-0566 was lying parked in the house of his relative which was also taken into Police possession. On 29.11.2006, the Investigating Officer interrogated accused Jasvir Singh alias Taini, who suffered disclosure statement Ex.PN, that he kept concealed one `Kirpan' in his cattle shed after washing the same and he could point out and offered to get the same recovered. Then in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the `Kirpan. Rough site plan Ex.PT of the place of recovery was also prepared. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellants, framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [6] guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann, Medical Officer, who on 22.11.2006 at about 4.50 p.m. medico-legally examined Kaur Singh son of Nauhar Singh and found the following injury:-
"An abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the medial aspect of right leg on upper 1/3rd of leg, 4 cm away from medial joint line and 4 cm away from tibia tuberosity, fresh bleeding was present. Injury was kept under observation subject to X-ray."
Weapon used was blunt and probable duration of injury was within six hours. The doctor also deposed that he sent intimation Ex.PB to SHO, Police Station, Rampura regarding the admission of Kaur Singh. On the same day, the Investigating Officer moved an application Ex.PC for knowing the condition of injured Chamkaur Singh alias Kaur Singh and the doctor gave his opinion Ex.PC/1 that Kaur Singh was unfit to make statement on that day at 9.00 p.m. He further deposed that on 23.11.2006, he along with Dr. B.D. Gupta conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gian Singh and found the following injuries:-
"1. An incised wound 17 cm x 2 cm from base of nose to left side of chin on left cheek, underlying muscle and bone cut. Clotted blood present.
2. Multiple incised wounds of about 3 cm x 0.5 cm about 4 in number on the nose, with clotted blood present.
3. An incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on outer edge of left eye brow, muscle and bone cut.
Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [7]
4. An incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm on sub temporal region, underlying muscle & bone cut.
5. Left ear pinna cut underlying incised wound 24 cm x 2 cm, associated with incised wound extending upto sub occipital region, underlying muscle and skull bone cut. Meninges and brain tissue missing, clotted blood in cranial cavity present.
6. Two incised wounds one 18 cm x 2 cm and other 14 cm x 2 cm. Crossing each other placed on the left parieto occipital region,skull bone cut into pieces, meninges and brain tissue injury present, clotted blood in cranial cavity present.
7. An incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm on the left side of head on occipital parietal region, muscle bone cut brain tissue and meninges injured, clotted blood present in cranial cavity.
8. Multiple contusions of varying sizes of about 5 to 10 cm long and 0.5 to 1 cm in breadth about 8 in number on left shoulder, left arm and left side of chest.
9. An incised wound 22 cm x 4 cm on the left upper arm on posterior aspect extending from elbow to middle of arm underlying muscle and bones cut.
10. An incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm on the front of left forearm just below elbow, underlying muscle and bones cut.
11. An incised wound 20 cm x 10 cm with flap of skin hanging under muscles bones and vessels cut on the right forearm on flexor aspect.
12. Lacerated wound 15 cm x 5 cm with heel pad hanging Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [8] down on the right heel, associated with multiple abrasions of about 4 in number of about 4 cm x 2 cm in size on the dorsum of right foot."
The cause of death in their opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage and brain injury. All the injuries collectively and injuries No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 individually were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time between injury and death was almost immediate and between death and post-mortem was within 12 to 24 hours. The doctor also gave the opinion while appearing as PW-1 that injuries No.1 to 7 and 9 to 11 on the dead body of Gian Singh could be a result of Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.3 `Kirpans'. These weapons were also shown to him at the time when he gave his opinion Ex.PG. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that injury No.12 could be sustained in the heel of the deceased by driving motorcycle if the heel strikes the road and rubbing of the sole on hard surface of road.
PW-2 Paramjit Singh complainant and eye witness mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-3 Chamkaur Singh alias Kaur Singh, who was injured eye witness, also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 ASI Gurdev Singh deposed that he joined the Police party headed by Inspector Devinder Singh on 28.11.2006. He deposed regarding the disclosure statements made by the accused and the recoveries got effected in pursuance thereof. PW-5 Inspector Devinder Singh, SHO is the Investigating Officer. He deposed regarding investigation conducted in the present case. PW-6 CII Satroop Singh and PW-7 Head Constable Joginder Singh are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.PV and Ex.PW respectively. PW-8 Jagtar Singh, Clerk posted at Regional Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [9] Transport Office, Patiala mainly deposed regarding the ownership of motorcycle bearing registration No.CH-01L-3629 in the name of Gian Singh. The Public Prosecutor tendered FSL report Ex.PY in prosecution evidence and closed the same.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. They also pleaded that they had been falsely implicated as the complainant party had enmity with them. At the time of alleged occurrence, Jagsir Singh and Randhir Singh were present in the Court of Shri R.L. Chauhan, S.D.J.M., Phul i.e. on 22.11.2006 from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. in connection with case FIR No.59 dated 19.8.2006 under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC. On the said date, charge was framed and Jagsir Singh and Randhir Singh had signed the charge-sheet. They were freed from the Court at 4.00 p.m. and they left the Court premises at 4.30 p.m. after meeting their Advocate. Co-accused Jasvir Singh alias Taini at the time of alleged occurrence was at Truck Union, Rampura Phul, where he was seen by Bittu Singh, Driver of Truck of Dalvir Singh, Tejinder Pal Kanger, Madan Lal, Driver and many other drivers and conductors. At that time, Paramjit Singh complainant and his brother Charanjit Singh were not present and they were subsequently called from their Village Mehraj and Paramjit Singh had lodged a false report being cousin of Gian Singh. It is also stated that Maingal Singh was present at his house at Village Daraj, where the construction work of his house was in progress and Bahadur Singh son of Modan Singh Panch, Ram Singh and Gurdev Singh were Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [10] helping him in the construction of his house. Village Daraj is situated about 30 kms. from the place of occurrence. He also stated that he and his co- accused had no Jeep and recovery of Jeep and swords had been planted upon them.
In defence, the accused-appellants examined DW-1 Tejinder Pal owner of truck No.RJ-19G-3891, who stated that on 22.11.2006 he along with Jasvir Singh alias Taini and other truck operator were present in the Truck Union at Rampura for hearing the Pukar which was announced at 4.00 p.m. DW-2 Bahadur Singh mainly deposed that he knew Maingal Singh. On 22.11.2006, accused Maingal Singh was present at Village Daraj. The roof of the house of Maingal Singh was to be constructed which started at about 9.00 a.m. and completed at about 6.00 p.m. Gurdev Singh, Ram Singh and 20/25 persons were present in the house of Maingal Singh. DW- 3 Ram Singh mainly deposed that on 22.11.2006, he along with other persons were present in the house of Maingal Singh for the construction of the roof of his house and Maingal Singh remained with them. DW-4 Hardeep Singh, Ahlmad brought the summoned file of case titled State versus Jagsir Singh and proved the copy of charge-sheet Ex.DA. DW-5 Madan Lal also deposed that on 22.11.2006 he and Jasvir Singh were present in the Truck Union, Rampura. At about 5.00 p.m., they came to know that Gian Singh (now deceased) had been assaulted on Rampura Mehraj road by some persons and had been brought to Rampura Hospital. Thereafter, they went to Civil Hospital, Rampura. Police was already present there. They inquired from the Police about the assailants, but the Police told that they were not known.
Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [11] After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, the learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that it is a blind murder case. No PW was present on the spot and the PWs have been falsely introduced in the present case as eye witnesses. He argued that Chamkaur Singh was conscious but his statement was not recorded to concoct story. The complainant party has enmity with the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Chamkaur Singh was only having simple injury on his person. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further argued that there is delay in recording the FIR. He further argued that the appellants were not present at the place of occurrence. Rather, the DWs have proved their presence in the Truck Union and in the house. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further argued that there was no recovery of weapon from Maingal Singh. He further argued that injury No.12 attributed to Maingal Singh, as per doctor, was possible by dragging etc. He further argued that PW Chamkaur Singh in cross-examination has stated that he was not knowing Taini and Maingal Singh accused before the occurrence.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the eye witnesses. The presence of persons injured eye witnesses cannot be doubted. The oral statements are duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. Weapons have been duly recovered from accused Jagsir Singh and Jasvir Singh which Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [12] supports and corroborates the prosecution version. He argued that the occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m. Then the injured were shifted to the hospital and the statement of the complainant was completed at 8.45 p.m. There is no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR. The motive is also there for causing the murder of Gian Singh by the accused-appellants. Therefore, he argued that the appeal having no merit should be dismissed.
We have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State.
From the record, we find that it is a case of direct evidence. PW-2 Paramjit Singh, who is the complainant and eye witness to the occurrence, has deposed consistently as per prosecution version. PW-3 Chamkaur Singh alias Kaur Singh is the injured eye witness to the occurrence. He was also admitted in the hospital and was medico-legally examined at 4.50 p.m. on 22.11.2006. Therefore, presence of injured eye witnesses cannot be doubted. Otherwise also, there is nothing in the cross- examination of PWs which may make their presence doubtful on the spot. Both the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version and there are no material improvements in their statements nor there are material contradictions in their statements which may go to the root of the case. The occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m. and the statement of the complainant was completed at 8.45 p.m. Chamkaur Singh injured eye witness was immediately admitted in the hospital after the occurrence and medico-legally examined at 4.50 p.m. Therefore, the presence of Chamkaur Singh on the spot cannot be doubted.
Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [13] There is no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR. It is in the evidence that 15 to 20 minutes were consumed on the spot and then an ambulance came and Gian Singh and Chamkaur Singh were shifted to hospital. `Ruqa' was sent from the hospital and the Investigating Officer came to the hospital and recorded the statement of Paramjit Singh. It is in the statement of PW-1 Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann that the Investigating Officer sought the information regarding the fitness of Chamkaur Singh but he declared him unfit to make statement on that day at 9.00 p.m. vide his opinion Ex.PC/1 but mere fact that Chamkaur Singh in his cross- examination stated that he remained conscious does not create any doubt in the prosecution version. The doctor was not cross-examined regarding his opinion Ex.PC/1. Therefore, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version and the delay whatever is, has been duly explained as the injured were firstly shifted to the hospital and Gian Singh succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The `Ruqa' was sent by the doctor to the SHO, who came in the hospital. Therefore, there is no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR. Further more, it is settled law that delay in itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. The mere fact that Chamkaur Singh received simple injury also does not create any doubt. The appellants have motive only against Gian Singh and not against Chamkaur Singh. Therefore, they caused 12 injuries on the person of Gian Singh and mostly these were incised wounds. The defence version as deposed by DWs that the accused were present in the Truck Union or in the house etc. cannot be believed. The prosecution version regarding the presence of Jagsir Singh, Randhir Singh and Jasvir Singh alias Taini on the spot cannot be doubted. There is Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [14] only oral statements of the DWs regarding the same. There is no documentary and cogent evidence on record to prove the plea of alibi. If the appellants were present in the Truck Union etc., then the only course for the witnesses was to make representation or complaints to the higher authorities regarding their false implication. The defence version looks afterthought and cannot be believed. Such type of witnesses can be procured at any time. Specific injuries have been attributed to appellant-Jagsir Singh alias Seera, Randhir Singh alias Dhira and Jasvir Singh alias Taini on the person of Gian Singh with `Kirpans'. Injury No.12, which is lacerated wound, cannot be caused with sharp edged weapon and the doctor in cross-examination has stated that injury No.12 could be sustained in the heel of the deceased while driving motorcycle if the heel struck the road and rubbing of the sole on hard surface of the road. This injury No.12 has been attributed to Maingal Singh-appellant. Therefore, from the medical evidence on record, this injury cannot be caused with sharp edged weapon like `Kirpan'. Further more, no `Kirpan' has been recovered by the Investigating officer from accused-appellant Maingal Singh. There is no other injury attributed to accused Maingal Singh and injury No.12 as per medical evidence has not been caused with `Kirpan'. The other act attributed to Maingal Singh is only that he raised a `Lalkara'. It is common practice that in such type of cases of murder and injuries, where there is already enmity between the parties, there is tendency to involve as many persons as possible. Maingal Singh is the maternal uncle of Jagsir Singh. He is resident of Village Daraj, which is at a distance of 30 kms. from the place of occurrence. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists regarding the involvement of accused-appellant Cr. Appeal No.D-296-DB of 2008 [15] Maingal Singh in the present occurrence. As such, benefit of doubt is to go to appellant Maingal Singh and by giving him benefit of doubt, we hold him not guilty of charges framed against him and acquit him accordingly.
As regards appellants-Jagsir Singh alias Seera, Randhir Singh alias Dhira and Jasvir Singh alias Taini, the prosecution has duly proved its case by bringing eye witness Paramjit Singh and injured eye witness Chamkaur Singh into the witness box, who have deposed consistently regarding the prosecution version. Oral Statements of the PWs are duly supported by medical evidence and further recovery of `Kirpans' in pursuance of disclosure statements of the accused. PW-2 and PW-3 are truthful, trustworthy and reliable witnesses. There is also motive for these accused-appellants to cause occurrence as deposed by PWs.
Therefore, from the above discussion, we uphold their conviction and sentence. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court qua appellants-Jagsir Singh alias Seera, Randhir Singh alias Dhira and Jasvir Singh alias Taini are upheld. The appeal qua them is dismissed.
The appeal is partly allowed qua appellant-Maingal Singh and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court qua him is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(Jasbir Singh) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
January 17, 2013.
*hsp*