Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap And Others on 13 January, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Kuldip Singh
Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001
Date of Decision : 13.1.2014.
State of Punjab ...... Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and others ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellant-State.
Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the respondents.
KULDIP SINGH, J.
The State of Punjab has come up in appeal against the acquittal of accused Baljit Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC; acquittal of accused Baljit Singh under Sections 307 and 25 of the Arms Act; acquittal of Sukhwinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and acquittal of all the accused for offence under Section 148 IPC.
Prosecution version is that on 16.3.1999 at about 10:00 P.M. Tejinder Singh, complainant, accompanied by his brother Balraj Singh, since deceased, after attending the meeting of Akali Dal were coming in their Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-10-AC-8071. Charanjit Singh @ Pannu son of Darshan Singh, resident of Lal Quaters, Basti Abdullahpur, Ludhiana, after dropping Amarjit Singh Bhatia at his residence also accompanied them. Balraj Singh deceased was driving the Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -2- car and Tejinder Singh was sitting on the front co-driver seat. Charanjit Singh @ Pannu was sitting on the rear seat. Charanjit Singh @ Pannu was accompanying the complainant as he was to bring back the vehicle after dropping the complainant and his brother Balraj Singh at their house. When they reached in the street near the house of Banta Singh Fauji, there was a curve where a Maruti car was found parked in the slanting position. Balraj Singh blew horn of his car and asked the driver of the car to remove the car to one side of road. Then out of the said car, Gurbachan Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of Fauji Mohalla, Basti Abdulapur, Ludhiana accompanied by his two sons Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and Baljit Singh and two others, namely, Jagdish Lal and Amrish Kumar sons of Amir Chand, residents of Fauji Mohalla, Basti Abdulahpur, Ludhiana, alighted. The lights of the car of the complainant were on. Gurbachan Singh raised exhortation that Balraj Singh should be taught a lesson for passing on secret information against them. Sukhwinder Singh took out a pistol from his lion cloth (dubb). Accused Sukhwinder Singh and Baljit Singh told Jagdish Lal and Amrish Kumar to bring Balraj Singh out as he is to be shot dead after making him stand in the street. Tejinder Singh and Charanjit Singh @ Pannu were frightened and hid themselves behind the car. Then accused Jagdish Lal and Amrish Kumar dragged Balraj Singh outside the vehicle. Balraj Singh grappled with both of them. Baljit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap fired shots from their pistols at Balraj Singh who on receiving gun shots fell down. Said accused also fired shots towards the complainant and Charanjit Singh @ Pannu, but they saved themselves. All the accused started raising exhortation and thereafter they fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -3- Palwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh came at the spot. Then they alongwith some other persons rushed the deceased Balraj Singh to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana in the same vehicle where he breathed his last.
Inspector Pritam Singh, SHO, P.S. Division No. 5, Ludhiana, (PW5) on receiving information about the firing incident reached the spot. Thereafter, he went to DMCH, Ludhiana where Tejinder Singh made the statement on which SHO made an endorsement at 1:15 AM. Thereafter, on 17.3.1999 at 2:45 AM, the present FIR was registered. Subsequently, Inspector Pritam Singh took into possession car bearing registration No. PB-10-AC-8071 parked outside the DMCH, Ludhiana. At that time, blood stains were found in the car and same were lifted. Two lead bullets were also found on the mat of the back seat of the car. Police also visited the place of crime and prepared the site plan. Blood stained and plain earth was also lifted from the place of occurrence. Two empties of .30 bore pistol and one misfired cartridge of .30 bore pistol were also recovered from the spot.
The accused were chargesheeted under Sections 148, 302, 307, 149 IPC.
On 17.3.1999, accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap surrendered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and subsequently he was taken into custody. The other accused were later on arrested.
To substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and also proved the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.PXX and Chemical Examiner report Ex.PYY. When examined under Section Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -4- 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication.
Accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap claimed that earlier one Harbans Lal of their locality was murdered in the year 1993 and a criminal case was registered against Tejinder Singh, PW and Palwinder Singh in connection with the said murder. Balraj Singh deceased and others were, however, not arrested by the police in the said case and accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap was falsely implicated in the said case. The case relating to the murder of Harbans Lal is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap claimed that he was earlier falsely implicated in a case relating to murder of Harbans Lal. He has nothing to do with the murder of Balraj Singh. Due to fear of the police, he had surrendered before the Court. Recovery of car, pistol and contraband opium were planted upon him.
Accused Baljit Singh and Gurbachan Singh claimed that they were arrested from their house on the night intervening 16/17.3.1999 and have been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal claimed that their real uncle Harbans Lal was earlier murdered by Balraj Singh deceased and his brothers Tejinder Singh and Palwinder Singh. Their uncle Krishan Lal had filed a complaint against Balraj Singh, his brothers Tejinder Singh and Palwinder Singh in connection with the said murder and that Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal were material witnesses in the said case. Both challan case and complaint case relating to murder of Harbans Lal are pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. They claimed that the complainant party was pressurizing them to resile from Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -5- their statements, but they refused to oblige them. They claimed that on 16.3.1999 at about 6:00 P.M. they alongwith their family members had gone to village Jasran and had returned back at about 11:45 P.M. They were arrested by the police on return from the village and later on falsely involved in this case.
Accused also led the defence evidence and examined Amit Sharma, Press Reporter (DW1), Ravi Dutt, Ahlmad in the Court of Shri A.K. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (DW2) and Shri Jagdev Singh, Warder, Central Jail, Ludhiana (DW3).
After hearing the prosecution, the defence counsel and carefully going through the records of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 5.10.2000 convicted accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap for an offence under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of ` 2,000/- or in default thereafter to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The remaining accused were acquitted. On account of death of Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap, his appeal i.e. Crl. A. No. 157-DB-2001 already stands abated, vide order dated 29.4.2009. Against the said acquittal of all the remaining accused and acquittal of accused Sukhwinder Singh under the other sections, the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Sharma Sanjiv Kumar2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -6-
At the very outset, it is to be noticed that accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap had also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. Sukhwinder Singh died in January 2009 and his appeal was disposed of by this Court having abated, vide order dated 29.4.2009.
Now, it is to be seen that what were the injuries on the person of the deceased. Dr. Manjit Singh (PW-1) found the following injuries on the person of the deceased when the post mortem was conducted on 17.3.1999 :-
1. Lacerated wound with inverted margins 1.5cmx1.5 cm on the right supraclaviculer area 5 cm from the midline.
Blackening around the margins and on the shirt was present.
2. Lacerated wound 2.25 cm x 2.25 cm with everted margin on the left posterior axillary line on the lower part of chest. On exploration of injury No. 1 and track went downward and backward causing the laceration of right lung upper part, lower mediastinum, lower lobe of left lung was lacerated and the track communicated with injury No. 2. Both the chest cavities were full of blood.
3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm with inverted margin with blackening around the margins and over the shirt. Wound was situated on the right mid clavicular line 8 cm below the right nipple.
4. Lacerated wound 2.1/4 cm x 2.1/4 cm with everted margin on the middle of left scapular area. On exploration of injury No. 3 the track went upwords, backword causing the laceration of middle part of right lung upper part of Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -7- mediastinum, upper part of left lung and fracture of left scapula. Both chest cavity were full of blood.
No other injury was found. The doctor also found that injuries No. 1 to 4 and the corresponding holes were present on the banyan (vest) from injuries No. 1 to 4. The injuries clearly show that two injuries are entry wounds and two are exit wounds meaning thereby deceased received two gun shot injuries fired from same caliber weapon. This shows that Balraj Singh was not dragged out of the car and Balraj Singh did not grapple with any of the assailants. Had it been so, Balraj Singh would have received other injuries like bruises and contusions.
First of all, it is necessary to establish as to whether the occurrence took place within the car or outside the car so as to fix the role of each of the accused. The prosecution version is that Jagdish Lal and Amrish Kumar dragged Balraj Singh out of the car where he was shot by Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and Baljit Singh. When Inspector Pritam Singh examined the car bearing registration No. PB-10-AC-8071 in which deceased was riding, blood stains were found on the back seat of the car and two bullet pieces were found lying on the mat of the car. The injuries show that the gun shots were fired from close range, resulting in the blackening around the margins and on the shirt. The bullets passed through the body and fell on mat of rear seat which goes to show that Balraj Singh was in the car when the shots were fired. Otherwise, there is nothing on file to show that the bullets pierced through the car and fell on the mat of the car. This rules out the story of dragging the deceased out of the car before the occurrence.
Now, second thing to be seen is as to whether one weapon was Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -8- used in the crime or two pistols of the same bore were used by Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and Baljit Singh in the crime? From the spot, police recovered two empties of .30 bore pistol and one misfired cartridge of .30 bore pistol. This falsify the statement of complainant that both Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and Baljit Singh had also fired shots at them. The two shots had hit the deceased and one misfired shot could not be fired at all.
During the investigation, the police had recovered one pistol of .30 bore from accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap. The pistol of the same bore was also recovered from Baljit Singh. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory shows that both the empties were found to have been fired from .30 bore pistol No. 33029827-66 recovered from Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap. Regarding the misfired cartridge, no definite opinion was given for lack of sufficient individual characteristic marks. Regarding the two jacketed bullets recovered from the car of the complainant, one is found to have been fired from .30 bore pistol of Sukhwinderr Singh @ Bhap and no definite opinion regarding the other jacketed bullet was given due to lack of individual characteristic mark. The Forensic Science Laboratory report is Ex.PXX. The laboratory further opined that the pistol recovered from Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap was used in firing. However, the date of last fire could not be ascertained. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory makes it clear that both the bullets which killed Balraj Singh were fired from the pistol of accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and that the pistol recovered from accused Baljit Singh could not be proved to have been used in the present crime.
It is also clear that the complainant party made exaggeration Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -9- regarding dragging of the injured and bringing him outside the car by accused Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal. They also involved Baljit Singh and Gurbachan Singh in the crime. Baljit Singh is the brother of Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhap and Gurbachan Singh is their father who was aged 70 years. The occurrence took place in Ludhiana city. The nature of injuries shows that the bullet hit the lungs of deceased and most probably caused the instantaneously death.
The trial Court took into consideration all the facts. The learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration the fact that there was a previous enmity between the parties and Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal were the witnesses against Balraj Singh in the complaint case pertaining to the murder of Harbans Lal. Naturally, the anxiety of the complainant was to ensure that the witnesses do not depose against them. Therefore, the trial Court correctly believed that in order to pressurize Amrish Kumar and Jagdish Lal, their names were included in the FIR. Complainant belonged to ruling Shiromani Akali Dal and were well connected with the people in power. Therefore, they were in a position to influence the investigation. The trial Court has also rightly observed that the blood might have fallen on the earth when deceased Balraj Singh, who was on the driver seat, was removed from the driver seat and put on the back seat. The trial Court, therefore, found that possibility of false implication of the other accused cannot be ruled out.
The guidelines for interference by the superior Court in the order of acquittal are well established. In State of U.P. Versus Gobardhan and others, 2013 (5) RCR (Criminal) 743, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
Sharma Sanjiv Kumar2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -10-
"10. This Court has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by the superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
Yet in another case in Jugendra Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 817, the Apex Court evaluate the parameters laid down for reversing judgment of acquittal to that of conviction by the appellate Court by various pronouncements. It took into consideration the observations made in the following authorities :-
"23. In Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M.P., 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 84 : 2007 (4) R.A.J. 683 : (2007) 7 SCC 625, it has been observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has every power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole before it. It is, no doubt, true that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, but that is not the end of the matter. It is for Appellate Court to keep in view the relevant principles of law to re-appreciate and reweigh as a whole and to come to its own conclusion in accord with the principle of criminal jurisprudence.
24. In the State of Goa Versus Sanjay Thakran, 2007 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 458 : 2007 (2) R.A.J. 101 ::
(2007) 3 SCC 755, it has been reiterated that the Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -11- Appellate Court can peruse the evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal only if the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision is perverse."
A Division Bench of this Court in Neeta Versus Sandeep alias Athanni and others, Crl. Misc. No. A-746-MA of 2012 also examined the point and observed that appellant had failed to indicate that any misreading of evidence on part of trial Judge which may necessitate interference by this Court and has held as under :-
"13. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, MANU/SC/1428/2011 :
(2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.
8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.01.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 341-DBA of 2001 -12- be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction.
Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for."
When examined in the light of the abovenoted guidelines, we are of the opinion that there is no misreading of evidence by the trial Court. The trial Court has given sound reasoning for passing the order of acquittal under challenge. Therefore, we do not find any ground to differ with the reasoning put-forth by the trial Court. The charges relating to attempt to murder of Tejinder Singh and Charanjit Singh @ Pannu are not proved and so are the other connected charges.
In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab is found to be without any merit and is dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
13.1.2014
sjks
Whether referred to the Reporter or not ? : Yes / No
Sharma Sanjiv Kumar
2014.01.27 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh