Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2009
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill, Jitendra Chauhan
Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000
Date of Decision: 13.7.2009
Jasbir Singh
...Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. S.S.Gill, Additional A.G., Punjab
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The appellant, Jasbir Singh was charge-sheeted on 21.9.1998 under Sections 459, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for committing house breaking and attempting to cause death of Darshan Singh and causing grievous hurt to Tirath Singh. The learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 23.9.2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 459 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 302 of IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 307 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the present case stand reflected in para 2 of the impugned judgment dated 23.9.2000, which is reproduced as under:-
"....on 28.6.1998 at night time, Tirath Singh, his father Darshan Singh and mother Gurdev Kaur were present in the courtyard of their house in village Jandiala and were talking. Electric light was on. It was 11.00 p.m. Jasbir Singh, accused armed with naked kirpan entered the house by jumping over the main gate. He came straight towards Tirath Singh etc. and said that they be taught a lesson for getting a case registered against him. Then accused gave kirpan blow from the sharp edged side on the person of Darshan Singh hitting him on the leg. He had given another kirpan blow on Darshan Singh hitting on the right leg. Darshan Singh fell on the ground. Then accused further gave three kirpan blows from the reverse side on the person of Darshan Singh hitting Darshan Singh on the right ear, face and left side of buttock. When Tirath Singh tried to rescue Darshan Singh, then accused gave kirpan blow four times from the sharp edged side hitting on the person of Tirath Singh hitting on the head, Tirath Singh fell down on the ground and accused gave two more kirpan blows hitting Tirath Singh on the right ear and right hand. Tirath Singh, Darshan Singh and Gurdev Kaur raised alarm `Mar Ditta.' Some Bhaiyas from the adjoining kothies also raised alarm. Then accused ran away Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 3 from the main gate side by jumping. No conveyance could be arranged in the night due to darkness and these persons did not come out due to fear and could not go to the hospital during night. Next morning, Joga Singh sister's son of Darshan Singh came per chance. He arranged conveyance and then they were removed to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar,where they were medically examined and treated. Darshan Singh died at about 6 p.m. on 20.6.1998 due to the injuries. That the accused had caused the occurrence since about two years back, accused had caused injuries on the person of this Tirath Singh for which case was registered at Police Station Nurmahal. Accused was pressing the complainant Tirath Singh and his family members to compromise which they were refusing and therefore, he had caused this occurrence with the intention to kill Darshan Singh."
3. On receipt of the message from Police Station, Nurmahal regarding the admission of Tirath Singh and Darshan Singh on account of injuries suffered by them, ASI Pardeep Singh (PW-13) reached Civil Hospital, Jalandhar for recording the statements. The opinion from the doctor regarding the fitness to make statement of the injured was sought on which the injured were declared unfit to make statements. ASI Pardeep Singh (PW-13) again visited the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. However, at that time doctor was not available. On again seeking the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of injured, the doctor handed over a medical slip regarding death of Darshan Singh, whereas the other injured, Tirath Singh (PW-6) was declared fit to make a statement. The statement of Tirath Singh Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 4 was recorded. After receiving this ruqa, the same was sent to the Police Station through SPO Paramjit Singh for registration of a case. On receipt of writing from ASI Paramjit Singh, formal FIR under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by Balwinder Singh, ASI on 30.6.1998 at 9.25 p.m. The special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 9.15 a.m. on 1.7.1998. ASI Balwinder Singh prepared inquest report on the dead body of Darshan Singh. The statements of Tirath Singh and Gurdev Kaur were recorded. The blood stained clothes of deceased were taken into possession. On 1.7.1998, the spot inspection was conducted by ASI Pardeep Singh (PW-13) and blood stained earth was lifted.
4. On 3.7.1998, on receipt of secret information, the accused was arrested from the courtyard of his house. During interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement on 5.7.1998 that he had kept concealed kirpan without sheath in the iron box lying in the back room of his house. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, recovery of sword was effected from the place pointed out by the accused. The sword was blood stained. Dalip Singh, Draftsman prepared the scaled plan Exhibit PQ in respect of place of occurrence.
5. After completion of investigation, the accused was charge- sheeted to face trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined Dr.Swaran Singh, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar as PW-1, Dr.Lalit Tandon, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar as PW-2, Dr.Manmeet Singh Padda, as PW-3, Sh.Dalip Singh, Draftsman as PW-4, Dr.Jasmeet Walia as PW-5, Sh. Tirath Singh as PW-6, Smt.Gurdev Kaur as PW-7, HC Jaswant Singh as PW-8, HC Satnam Singh Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 5 as PW-9, C.Karni Singh as PW10, C.Narinder Singh as PW-11, Dr.Inderjit Singh as PW-12, ASI Pardeep Singh as PW-13 and Sucha Singh as PW-14.
7. Dr. Swaran Singh, PW-1, had medically examined Darshan Singh on 29.6.1998 at 5.30 a.m. in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. This doctor also examined the injured and the complainant, Tirath Singh on the same day. The post-mortem on the dead body of Darshan Singh was conducted by Dr. Lalit Tandon, PW-2, who noticed the following injuries:-
1. A bluish violet contusion present on upper 1/3rd of left thigh, on its lateral aspect. Swelling was present on upper 1/3rd of thigh.
2. A stitched wound 8 cm in length present on anterior aspect of right leg. On dissection and exploration it was found that a small piece of underlying bone was chopped off.
3. Stitched wound 7 cm in length present on the lateral aspect of left leg. 26 cm below the knee near ankle. Swelling was present extending on to the foot. On exploration there was fracture of proximal part of 5th metacarpal bone.
4. A stitched wound 6 cm in length above injury No.3.
5. A stitched wound present on the anterior aspect of left leg 7 cm below the knee.
6. An abrasion present on the left knee, 3 x 2 cm in size.
Clotted blood was present.
7. A bluish contusion present on the right thigh, size 8 x 4 cm.
8. A lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm present on upper part of right pinna. Clotted blood was present and it was skin deep. Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 6
9. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the right feet. It was skin deep and clotted blood was present.
10.A bluish contusion of size 30 x8 cm present on abdomen extending from public area to left sub costal region.
8. The following injuries were noticed on the body of injured Tirath Singh:-
1. An incised wound 4" x 1/2" on the parietal region of the skull on its vault. It was near the mid line and was bone deep. Advised x-ray.
2. An incised wound 3" x 1/2" on the left side of the parietal region, 1/4" from injury No.1 near the mid line. It was bone deep. X-ray was advised.
3. An incised wound 3" x 1/4" incised wound on the frontal and parietal bone. It was also bone deep.
4. An 3" x 1/2" incised wound on the frontal region of head on its left side. It was also bone deep.
5. An incised wound 2" x 1" on the lower 1/3rd of the right forearm. It was also bone deep.
6. An incised wound 1" x 1 cm on the palmer aspect of the right little finger. The proximal interphalangial joint dislocated.
9. Tirath Singh, complainant and Gurdev Kaur, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence fully supported the case of prosecution. Pardeep Singh, ASI (PW-13) stated that he made an application, Exhibit PK, to find out whether Tirath Singh was fit to make a statement. Dr. Manmeet Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, who appeared as PW-3 declared the injured to be unfit to make statement. On 30.6.1998, Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 7 statement of Tirath Singh was recorded.
10. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations and claimed false implication in the present case. He further claimed that deceased Darshan Singh had executed a Will of his property, excluding Tirath Singh (PW-6), as Tirath Singh was a drug addict. On account of exclusion from the property, Tirath Singh was annoyed with his father. On the day of occurrence, a quarrel took place between Tirath Singh and his father Darshan Singh in which injuries were caused to each other. FIR was not deliberately lodged on the same day as the matter was within the family. However, FIR was lodged on 30.6.1998 as Darshan Singh had expired on that day. The instant false case was registered against him due to previous enmity. The recovery of kirpan was fastened upon him. Accused/appellant also produced Atma Singh (DW-1), who deposed that Darshan Singh performed two marriages. Dilbagh Singh was from the first marriage. From the second marriage, there were two sons namely Tirath Singh and Kulwinder Singh. Dilbagh Singh had been living abroad. Darshan Singh, deceased had executed a Will regarding his entire land in favour of Dilbagh Singh only. On account of this, Tirath Singh and Kulwinder Singh had been quarreling with Darshan Singh. On 28.6.1998, Darshan Singh and Tirath Singh had quarrelled and caused injuries to each other. The accused, Jasbir Singh was not there when the quarrel took place. Tirath Singh got a false case registered against Jasbir Singh. Thereafter the defence evidence was closed.
11. On behalf of the prosecution, it was argued that the accused had a strong motive against the deceased and his family on account of FIR Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 8 registered against the accused. The case of the prosecution was fully proved on the basis of medical evidence and the statements of Tirath Singh (PW-6) and Gurdev Kaur (PW-7). It was further argued that Tirath Singh and Kulwinder Singh had quarrelled with Darshan Singh on the night of occurrence. As the matter was not deliberately reported to the police, the present case was foisted upon the accused.
12. Submission on behalf of the accused before the trial court was that Darshan Singh exclused Tirath Singh, PW-6 from his property. Tirath Singh (PW-6) and Kulwinder Singh had quarrelled with Darshan Singh on the day of occurrence. On 30.6.1998 after the death of Darshan Singh, the accused was falsely implicated in the present case. It was further argued that opinion of Dr.Manmeet Singh (PW-3) regarding Darshan Singh and Tirath Singh being unfit to make statement on 29.6.1998, was just a made up story. Further submission was that probably death was on account of injury no. 10 which remained unattended as the same was not noticed at the time of medico legal examination on 29.6.1998 by Dr.Swaran Singh (PW-1). Thus, in the present case, it could not be said that the injuries were sufficient to cause death and therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
13. The learned trial Court observed that in the instant case, the accused trespassed into the house with a naked kirpan attacked and caused injuries to Darshan Singh and Tirath Singh.
14. The present appeal was received through jail and admitted on 5.1.2001.
15. It was argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that Tirath Singh, complainant (PW-6) was a drug addict and for this reason Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 9 he was disinherited from the property by his father. The entire land was given to Dilbagh Singh. Tirath Singh (PW-6) was unhappy on account of his exclusion from the property by his father. On the day of occurrence, Darshan Singh and Tirath Singh had quarrelled and gave injuries to each other, but the matter was not reported to the police being a family dispute. The FIR was got registered on 30.6.1998 against the appellant when Darshan Singh died, Earlier also, the complainant had got registered an FIR under Sections 324, 323, 34 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code on 20/21.2.1996. There was an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR. No interregnum period was utilized for deliberation and concoction to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case. It was further submitted that the case against the appellant was apparently false and concocted as the name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the head note of vital documents prepared during the course of investigation like Exhibit PZ pertaining to the site plan, Exhibit PY, memo etc.
16. On behalf of State, it was argued that the occurrence was witnessed by Tirath Singh, complainant (PW-6) and his mother Gurdev Kaur, wife of the deceased (PW-7). There was no motive with the complainant and his mother to kill Darshan Singh and falsely implicate the appellant and exonerate the real culprit. It was further submitted that there was previous enmity between the appellant and family of the complainant, who lodged an FIR against the appellant. The appellant tried to pressurize the complainant and his family to compromise the matter. Refusal to compromise the matter by the complainant and his family, enraged the appellant, who ultimately resorted to eliminate the family of the complainant.
Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 10
17. As regards delay, it is submitted that the occurrence took place at 11.30 p.m. Both the male members of the family were badly injured. The injured were moved to hospital at 5.00 a.m. There was no dispute between Darshan Singh and his son Tirath Singh on account of Will executed by Darshan Singh because Tirath Singh was given house and Baithak as per family settlement. The occurrence took place in the house of the deceased.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
19. The prime question in the instant appeal is whether the accused/appellant had a motive to kill Darshan Singh and cause injury to the complainant, Tirath Singh?
20. As per the prosecution case, the occurrence took place at 11.30 in the night when deceased, his wife and son (complainant) were present in the house. As per the evidence, the courtyard was well lit with electric light. The accused/appellant entered the house of the deceased in the night at 11.30 by scaling the wall.
21. Admittedly, there was previous enmity between the appellant and the family of the deceased as is clear from the FIR got registered by the complainant against the appellant in the year 1996 at Police Station, Nurmahal. As per the statements of eye witnesses Tirath Singh (PW-6) and Gurdev Kaur (PW-7), the accused caused numbers of injuries as recorded by the doctor with sword he was carrying. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the sword in question was recovered from the house of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, Law Herald 2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 888 has observed as under:-
Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 11
24. Out of seven eye-witnesses, P.W. 7 was not believed by the courts below. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were not present exactly at the place of occurrence. They are said to have witnessed only a part of the occurrence. All other eye-witnesses were related to the deceased. However, we do not hesitate to add that only on that ground their evidence should not be disbelieved.
Furthermore, there was no enmity between the parties. Only a case under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending against them. Even in respect thereof, no documentary evidence was brought on record to show as to when the said proceeding was initiated and at whose instance. The prosecution witnesses merely supported the prosecution case that a death had taken place and two witnesses suffered grievous injuries but it was absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to show that the accused were the aggressors. It was for that reason the genesis of the prosecution case must be held to have grave significance. We are satisfied that the accused/appellant was the aggressor. The genesis of the crime lie in the previous enmity on account of registration of case against the accused by the complainant-Tirath Singh (PW-6), who himself is an injured witness.
22. As regards delay, we feel that as the occurrence took place at 11.30 in the night and both the male members of the family were badly injured. Perhaps on account of those injuries, they remained under constant fear of further attack and could only move to the hospital in the morning at 5.00 a.m. In this context, it is also to be noted that as per opinion rendered Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 12 by Dr.Manmeet Singh (PW-3), the injured were not fit to make their respective statements. On the next day, when the complainant was declared fit to make statement, his statement was recorded without any delay. Therefore, we are convinced that there was no delay in lodging the FIR.
23. As regards non-mentioning of the name of accused/appellant in the head note of certain documents, we feel that on the face of statements of the eye witnesses Tirath Singh, PW-6 and Gurdev Kaur, PW-7, this fact pales into insignificance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SC) 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 240 observed as under:-
33. Mr. Sushil Kumar would urge that in the inquest report the name of the accused persons had not been mentioned. In our opinion that in law it was not necessary to do so. The inquest report is prepared for the purposes mentioned in 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not for corroborating the prosecution case. In Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P., [(1975) 4 SCC 153] this Court has held :
"11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174." Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 13
Yet again in George v. State of Kerala, [(1998) 4 SCC 605] it was held :-
"31. The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under Section 174(1) Cr PC is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, if any, such wounds appear to have been inflicted. In other words, for the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death."
24. There is no dispute regarding the place of occurrence, which took place in the house of deceased. The appellant scaled the wall of the house of deceased in the night and caused grievous injuries in a brutal manner to the deceased and the complainant, as the family of the deceased refused to succumb to the pressure for compromise in the criminal case already lodged against the appellant by the complainant. From the evidence on record, it is proved that the appellant had a strong motive to eliminate the deceased. The numbers of injuries given by the accused on the person of the deceased and the complainant speak for themselves. The deceased and his family members were taken unaware while they were discussing the family matters sitting in the courtyard of their house as there is no doubt left that accused had motive against the deceased and his family and except the bald statement of Atma Singh, DW-1. There is no evidence on record on Crl. Appeal No. 579-DB of 2000 14 the basis of which it can be inferred that there existed any animosity or ill- will between the deceased Darshan Singh and his son, whereas the previous enmity between the family is established.
25. Therefore, we conclude that the accused/appellant had a motive to eliminate the deceased.
26. In view of above discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23.9.2000 passed by the trial Court is maintained.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE (MEHTAB S. GILL) 13.7.2009 JUDGE mk Note: Whether referred to the Reporter= Yes/No