Punjab-Haryana High Court
H.C. Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 February, 2010
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : February 11, 2010
Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004
H.C. Ranjit Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Amicus Curaie, for the appellant.
Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.7.2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement (Ex.PH) of Jinder Pal Singh @ Tony. In his statement (Ex.PH), he has stated that he earns his livelihood by doing labour. He has three children. The eldest daughter is Manjit Kaur, the second is Nirmala and the third is his son namely Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka, aged about 14 years. Six months Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004 2 ago, his son started learning the work of making tea with Santokh Singh son of Dhian Singh, whose shop is situated near the main gate of NIS (National Institute of Sports). On 1.8.2003, he came to the said shop to enquire about his son Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka. At about 11.30 AM, he (Gurmeet Singh) had gone to nearby vegetable shop for delivering tea, where the police patrolling party whose duty is on motorcycle were standing, who have drunk liquor. Their names are HC Ranjit Singh and HC Balwinder Singh. They started quarelling with his son Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka for serving tea. HC Balwinder Singh told HC Ranjit Singh to teach lesson, as he is refusing to serve tea. HC Ranjit Singh fired a short from his revolver to the chest of his son, who fell down at the spot. He raised alarm. Nearby shop-keepers gathered. The son was picked up and was brought to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, where the Doctors declared him dead. On the basis of such statement, ruqa was sent to the SHO, P.S. Civil Lines for registration of an FIR at 2.00 PM. On receipt of ruqa, an FIR bearing No.206 dated 1.8.2003 was recorded by SI Jagroop Singh. The special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala at 4.30 PM.
The post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka was conducted by Dr. Ram Lubhaya (PW-8) on 1.8.2003. He has found the following injuries on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka :
"Fire arm entry wound measuring 1cm x 1cm circular in shape, margins were inverted and abraided. Abraided collar was wider on left and upper margin of the wound. The wound was located on the middle of chest between the two nipples and seven cms, below the sternal notch. On opening chest, right side of chest cavity was full of blood. Sternal was pierced by bullet below the entry wound, further in line right ventrical, right atrium of heart middle part of right lung, posterior chest Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004 3 wall was pierced, seventh and eighth rib was fractured in line and the bullet was lying just beneath the skin of the right side of back of chest."
The bullet was recovered and kept in a separate packet. The shirt was torn, corresponding to the entry wound. He has deposed that there was no exit wound.
HC Balwinder Singh and HC Ranjit Singh were medically examined by Dr. Manjinder Singh (PW-1). In respect of appellant HC Ranjit Singh, it was noticed to the following effect :
"Pulse 96 per minute, BP 130/84, conscious speech euphoric, walks unaided, pupils bilaterally 6 mmm well reacting to light. He was smelling of alcohol in his expired breath. He can walk on a line. His face is flushed. From head to toe, no flesh bodily injury was visible.
The samples of urine and blood were taken at the time of examination, sealed and sent for chemical laboratory were handed over to HC Surinderpal 1889."
The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PB in respect of HC Ranjit Singh reports to the following effect :
"Ethyl alcohol detected in contents of blood and urine. Blood alcohol concentration estimated to be 92.0 mg per 100 ml of blood."
HC Balwinder Singh was examined at 6.30 PM. His speech was euphoric and he also smelled of alcohol. Blood alcohol concentration was found to be 51.75 mg per 100 ml of blood in the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PD.
ASI Lakhwinder Singh (PW-7) has produced the record in respect of supply of arms to the police officials. HC Ranjit Singh No.296 was issued revolver No.V-6073 of .38 bore alongwith 12 cartridges. The Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004 4 entry from the register is Ex.PK. Eleven live cartridges were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PT.
Constable Dara Singh (PW-6) has produced the record of duty of HC Ranjit Singh and HC Balwinder Singh from 8.00 Am to 6.00 PM at beat No.1.
In Ex.PZ, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigrh, it was reported that one .38 inch I.F.Cartridge had been fired from .38 inch revolver No.V-6073. The chemical examination of barrel wash of .38 inch revolver No.V-6073 indicates that it had been used in firming and caliber of one jacketed bullet contained in Parcel-B and cartridge case contained in Parcel-B are of same i.e. .38 inch. It was also reported that on chemical examination, traces of copper and lead metal were detected on the periphery of hole present on the kurta type kameej and that this hole had been caused by a jacketed bullet. It was also reported that no definite opinion can be given regarding firing of one .38 inch bullet from . 38 inch revolver No.V-6073 due to lack of sufficient individual characteristic marks. In report Ex.PZ/1, the kurta Ex.SI contained in Parcel- A was found to be stained with human blood.
Apart from examining the other formal witnesses and the Investigating Officer, the prosecution has examined Jinder Pal Singh @ Tony as PW-5, father of the deceased and Santokh Singh as PW-4, in whose shop the deceased Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka was working. Jinder Pal Singh (PW-5) has turned hostile. He was cross-examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. Santokh Singh (PW-4) in his statement has deposed that on 1.8.2003 at about 11.30 AM, two Constables were taking liquor on the other shop. They were teasing each other. Ranjit Singh fired from his revolver, which hit Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka in the chest. He has deposed that Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004 5 Gurmeet Singh had not given tea to the accused and nor Ranjit Singh had raised quarrel with Gurmeet Singh. He has admitted in his cross- examination that he and Jinder Pal Singh had seen the occurrence and that it is correct that Ranjit Singh has murdered Gurmeet Singh from his revolver and this fact was also told by Ranjit Singh to him.
Learned trial Court found that though Jinder Pal Singh (PW-5) has turned hostile, but Santokh Singh (PW-4) has supported the prosecution case in respect of role of HC Ranjit Singh, but there is no word of any action at the hands of HC Balwinder Singh. Therefore, HC Balwinder Singh was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. However, it was found that HC Ranjit Singh was on duty from the testimony of Constable Dara Singh (PW-6). Revolver No.V-6073 of .38 bore alongwith 12 cartridges was issued to HC Ranjit Singh. A bullet of .38 bore was recovered from the dead body of the deceased Gurmeet Singh with corresponding mark on the shirt of the deceased, which has copper and lead metal contents. Eleven live cartridges were recovered from HC Ranjit Singh, whereas one cartridge was used, which was sent for forensic test. Thus, it was found that the prosecution has proved the charge of death of Gurmeet Singh by HC Ranjit Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the argument that in the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not connect the bullet having been fired from the service revolver due to sufficient individual characteristic marks. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the firing of bullet from the service revolver issued to the appellant.
Dr. Manjinder Singh (PW-1) has medically examined the appellant at about 6.20 PM on 1.8.2003 i.e. almost 6 hours after the occurrence. Even at that time his speech was euphoric. Blood alcohol Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004 6 concentration was estimated to be 92.0 mg per 100 ml of blood in the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PB. It shows that the appellant was under
influence of liquor at the time of occurrence i.e. at about 11.30 AM. The bullet was recovered from the dead body of the Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka. Such bullet is of .38 inch fired from .38 revolver issued to the appellant. The shirt worn by the deceased has traces of copper and lead metal on a cut corresponding to the wound. Out of 12 cartridges issued, 11 were recovered from the appellant. One cartridge was found in the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, even if the Forensic Science Laboratory could not gave any conclusive opinion in respect of bullet recovered from the dead body having fired from the service revolver issued to the appellant, but the other facts as mentioned above, are conclusive to the fact that the bullet was fired from the service revolver issued to HC Ranjit Singh, which took the life of the deceased. Such evidence is corroborated by the direct eye- witness account of Santokh Singh (PW-4). The veracity of the statement of Santokh Singh (PW-4) could not be doubted in the cross-examination conducted.
It is also argued that Santokh Singh (PW-4) has turned hostile, therefore, his testimony cannot be taken into consideration. It is well settled that the testimony of hostile witnesses cannot be discarded in its entirety only for the reason that he has been declared hostile. Such part of the testimony, which supports the prosecution case and found corroboration from the other evidence can be relied upon. Though the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of HC Balwinder Singh, but his testimony is clear and categorical regarding the action of the appellant i.e. firing of a bullet from his service revolver. In view of the said fact, we Crl. Appeal No.722-DB of 2004 7 do not find that the statement of Santokh Singh (PW-4) cannot be relied upon.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable, as the case set up by the prosecution is of sudden fight without any pre-meditated mind. Therefore, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part-II of Section 304 IPC.
We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The appellant is a member of disciplined force. He has been given fire arm not to fire on innocent unarmed child of 14 years. The appellant was found to be under the influence of liquor. Single fire arm injury given by a Head Constable to a child of 14 years is nothing, but culpable homicide punishable under Section 302 IPC.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
February 11, 2010 (JASWANT SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE