Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2013
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D-
714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal
Revision No. 270 of 2009. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : October 28, 2013
Rajinder Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. D-714-DB of 2008
Sadhu Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008
Namdar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Sadhu Singh and others ...Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009
Manpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Babu Singh and others ...Respondents
Singh Parvinder
2013.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D-
714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal
Revision No. 270 of 2009. 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate with
Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants
in Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008.
Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba,
with Mr. H.S. Deol, Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocates
for the appellants
in Criminal Appeal No. D-714-DB of 2008.
Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the complainant/respondents
in Criminal Appeal Nos. D-679-DB of 2008, D-714-DB of
2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009.
Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner
in Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008.
Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner
in Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009.
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the State-respondent.
***
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? Yes/No
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
1. The accused who were convicted and sentenced by the trial court have preferred the above Criminal Appeals. Manpreet Singh has filed Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009 challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial Court in the counter case lodged by him. The complainant Namdar Singh has filed Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 praying for enhancement of sentence and Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 3 compensation. As all these appeals and the Criminal Revisions were connected with each other, they were taken up together for common disposal.
2. Accused Rajinder Singh had died as per the custody certificate produced by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab and accused Sadhu Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh had died as per the death certificate produced by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008 qua accused Rajinder Singh and Criminal Appeal No. D-714-DB of 2008 qua accused Sadhu Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh abated.
3. The complainant Namdar Singh suffered a statement as follows:-
He had a plot adjacent to the plot of accused Rajinder Singh. Rajinder Singh interfered with the possession of the plot possessed by Namdar Singh. Namdar Singh laid foundation for putting up a boundary wall in his plot. Accused Rajinder Singh came along with his son accused Manpreet Singh and others and tried to prevent Namdar Singh from raising wall. Namdar Singh out of fear of fight proceeded to call the Panchayat members. Iqbal Singh (since deceased) was the Ex-Sarpanch of the village. He came along with his brother Harbans Singh and Jagjit Singh to the spot. Accused Rajinder Singh, accused Manpreet Singh and accused Tota Singh were found armed with .12 bore gun each. Accused Gurcharan Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 4 Singh, accused Sadhu Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, accused Paramjit Singh and accused Gurdev Singh were found with Takua. Accused Gamdoor Singh raised lalkara that Namdar Singh should be taught a lesson for raising wall and his supporter Iqbal Singh for opposing Manpreet Singh in the election of Sarpanch. Accused Manpreet Singh fired a shot from his .12 bore gun which hit Iqbal Singh on his chest. Accused Rajinder Singh fired a shot at Namdar Singh which hit on his left ankle. PW7 Harbans Singh tried to run away out of fear. Tota Singh fired at him which hit him on his back. Sadhu Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh gave a Takua blow on Iqbal Singh on the back side of his head. Jagjit Singh came forward to rescue the complainant party. Accused Gurcharan Singh gave a Takua blow on his forehead. Accused Gurdev Singh gave a Takua blow from its reverse side which hit on the right shoulder of Namdar Singh. Accused Paramjit Singh also gave a Takua blow on the head of Namdar Singh. Accused Sadhu Singh son of Hakam Singh and Gamdoor Singh gave brick bat blow on the right hand of Namdar Singh and shoulder of Jagjit Singh. The injured were taken to the hospital but Iqbal Singh died on reaching the hospital.
4. Manpreet Singh had come out with a counter version in his statement as follows:-
On 28.9.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. Namdar Singh and his sons Sadhu Singh and Babu Singh were laying foundation for raising wall in the plot of Manpreet Singh. On seeing them, he (Manpreet Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 5 Singh) and his father Rajinder Singh, his father-in-law Sadhu Singh and brothers-in-law namely, Gamdoor Singh and Paramjit Singh, Sadhu Singh and Gurdev Singh sons of Mukhtiar Singh proceeded to the plot of Manpreet Singh, to prevent Namdar Singh and his sons Sadhu Singh and Babu Singh from laying foundation for raising wall in the plot of Manpreet Singh. Namdar Singh raised lalkara to catch hold of them and teach a lesson for preventing them from laying foundation. All the three persons were armed with spades. Iqbal Singh armed with Kapa and Wakil Singh armed with .12 bore gun came to the spot. Iqbal Singh gave a Kapa blow from its reverse side on the head of Manpreet Singh. Namdar Singh gave a brick bat blow on the neck of Gamdoor Singh. Sadhu Singh son of Namdar Singh gave a spade blow on the right hand wrist of Manpreet Singh.
Namdar Singh gave a brick bat blow on the face of Sadhu Singh and Babu Singh gave a spade blow from its reverse side on the head of Paramjit Singh. Iqbal Singh gave a Kapa blow from its reverse side on the forehead of Paramjit Singh. In order to save himself, Manpreet Singh fired a shot from his .12 gun. All the assailants ran away from the scene of occurrence. The injured were admitted to the hospital for treatment.
5. PW 1 Dr. K.N.S Dhillon medico legally examined Namdar Singh on 28.9.2003 at about 7.00 P.M. He found the following injures:-
1. Small punctured wound over right maxillary prominence with swelling underneath.Singh Parvinder
2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 6
2. Small lacerated wound about half inch long over the frontal region. Bone deep with active bleeding.
3. Small lacerated wound over the right index finger over the middle phalanx.
4. Small lacerated wound over the left lower leg about two inches above medial malleolus.
6. PW1 also medico legally examined Jagjit Singh at about 9.00 P.M. on the said day and found a lacerated wound on the right eye brow.
7. PW13 Dr. Rachhpal Singh medico legally examined Harbans Singh and found the following injuries:-
1. Multiple pellet wound/injury approximately .5 cm x 0.5 cm over left upper back with swelling.
2. Around 8 cm x 10 cm over right lower back with swelling.
8. PW2 Dr. Ashwani Kalia conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Iqbal Singh and found the following injuries on the dead body of Iqbal Singh:-
1. Multiple lacerated punctured wounds on front upper part of right chest over an area of 19 cm x 8 cm. Three wounds were larger in size. 1.5 cm x 1.5 c m, 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm, 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm while others were 0.25 x 0.25 cm. Edges were blackened. On dissection of injury the wound contained clotted blood. That tracks of injury passed through muscles, ribs and entered the upper and middle part of right lung, puncturing and lacerated it. The pleural cavity on right side was full of blood and fourth rib on anterior side was also fractured. 6 cm away from mid-
line. Three pallets were recovered from lung tissues and Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 7 were sent for examination by a Ballistic Expert which were duly sealed in a Jar.
2. A lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm on left parietal area 15 cm above left ear pinna, bone deep with clotted blood was present. On dissection of skull no fracture was seen on skull bones. Tissues underlying injury were congested and infiltrated with blood.
He opined that Iqbal Singh died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injury to the right lung which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
9. PW10 Inspector Karamjit Singh took up the case for investigation. On the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by accused Manpreet Singh. .12 bore DBBL gun was recovered at his instance. Accused Rajinder Singh and accused Tota Singh surrendered with their respective .12 bore DBBL gun before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
10. PW7 Harbans Singh and PW8 Jagjit Singh who were injured eye witnesses had completely supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant Namdar Singh could not be examined on account of his old age.
11. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused had come out with a plea of self defence. They also examined DW1 Dr. Hardutt Jyoti to show that accused Gurdev Singh had sustained grievous injury. DW2 Dr. O.P. Baghri spoke of the simple lacerated injury suffered by Manpreet Singh on the left side of his head. He also spoke to the lacerated wound on the head of Gamdoor Singh. Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 8 DW3 Dr. Baldev Raj spoke to the swelling over the right forearm of Gurdev Singh, three lacerated simple injuries on the head of Paramjit Singh and a lacerated injury on the person of Sadhu Singh.
12. The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record rejected the private defence set up by the accused and held that some injuries on the person of the accused had been caused by the complainant party in exercise of their private defence. Further, relying upon the evidence of PW7 Harbans Singh and PW8 Jagjit Singh, the injured eye witnesses in this case in the background of the FSL report and medical evidence, the trial court returned a verdict of conviction as against the accused as stated supra. The counter case lodged by Manpreet Singh was thrown out by the trial court.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit, referring to the evidence of PW8 Jagjit Singh, that accused Manpreet Singh opened gun shot fire just to scare away the complainant party who were chasing the accused party. Further, in the plot owned by the accused party, the complainant party had the audacity to put up a wall. The right of private defence was very much available with the accused party. The trial Court had not adverted to the fact that Gurdev Singh had sustained grievous injury in the occurrence. It is his further submission that FSL report belies the case of the prosecution that accused Rajinder Singh and Tota Singh used .12 bore DBBL gun to Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 9 cause injury to complainant Namdar Singh and PW7 Harbans Singh. The FSL report would disclose that .12 bore DBBL guns recovered from accused Rajinder singh and Tota Singh were not used in the crime. The trial court had rightly rejected the story of the prosecution that the accused sustained injury when the jeep in which they travelled turned turtle. The genesis of the occurrence was completely suppressed by the prosecution. The complainant party being the aggressors cannot set up a plea of private defence. Inasmuch as the accused party had the apprehension on account of the mischief committed by the complainant party, accused Manpreet Singh had lawfully opened gun shot fire exercising his right of private defence. He would also submit that accused Sadhu Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurcharan Singh would not have used the reverse side of the Takua, if at all they had shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. It is his submission that the accused appellants are entitled to acquittal as accused Manpreet Singh had excercised his right to private defence and that the complainant party be punished as they had attacked the accused party and caused injury.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that the sentence imposed was inadequate. Further, compensation should be granted to the legal representatives of the victim Iqbal Singh who had nothing to do with the dispute over the plot between the accused party and the complainant party.
15. We also heard the submissions made by learned Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 10 Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab supporting the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
16. The first informant could not be examined as his memory had elapsed on account of the old age but PW7 Harbans Singh who was none other than the brother of the deceased and PW8 Jagjit Singh who was none other than the cousin of the deceased had received injuries in the occurrence. The nature of injuries sustained by them in the occurrence had been spoken to by PW1 Dr. K.N.S. Dhillon and PW13 Dr. Rachhpal Singh. They had categorically deposed that on 28.9.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. the accused party prevented Namdar Singh and his sons from raising the wall on the plot in dispute. When they reached the scene of crime along with the deceased Iqbal Singh, accused Rajinder Singh, accused Manpreet Singh and accused Tota Singh were armed with .12 bore DBBL gun. Manpreet Singh shot at Iqbal Singh on his chest. Accused Rajinder Singh fired a shot to Namdar Singh on his left ankle. When PW7 tried to escape from the onslaught of the accused, accused Tota Singh fired at him and caused injury on the back side of his shoulder. Rajinder Singh fired a shot on the left ankle of Namdar Singh. Sadhu Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh gave a blow from the blunt side of his Takua on the head of Iqbal Singh. PW8 Jagjit Singh made an attempt to rescue Iqbal Singh. Accused Gurcharan Singh gave a blow from the blunt side of Takua on his forehead. Accused Paramjit Singh gave a blow from the blunt side of his Takua on the head of Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 11 Namdar Singh. Accused Gurdev Singh gave a Takua blow from its blunt side on the right side shoulder of Namdar Singh. Gamdoor Singh and Sadhu Singh son of Hakam Singh kept on hurling brick bats which hit on the cheek of Namdar Singh and shoulder of PW8 Jagjit Singh.
17. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the above injured ocular witnesses. Their testimony inspires confidence.
18. It is true that PW8 Jagjit Singh had deposed that when the accused fired shots, the complainant party stopped chasing them. But on a careful analysis of the entire gamut of evidence, we find that the complainant party had to exercise the right of private defence when an aggressive resistance was put up by the accused party. It is not the accused party who had to exercise right of private defence.
19. PW7 Harbans Singh had received gun shot injury on his back side. If at all the accused party opened fire when they were chased by the complainant party, PW7 would not have sustained injury on his back side. The accused party had come fully armed to the scene of occurrence the moment they found that the complainant party had started laying foundation of a wall at the disputed plot. The facts and circumstances would go to establish that the complainant party in fact exercised their right of private defence when the onslaught was launched by the accused party. Therefore, a stray Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 12 portion of the evidence of PW8 cannot be torn out of context to substantiate the defence that the accused had no option but to open fire when they were chased by the complainant party.
20. .12 bore DBBL gun used by Manpreet Singh was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by him. As per the FSL report, the licensed gun of Manpreet Singh had been used to fire a shot at deceased Iqbal Singh. But the cartridge cases marked as C/1, C/2 and C/4 did not match with the .12 bore DBBL guns recovered from accused Rajinder Singh and Tota Singh. As rightly pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab, those .12 bore DBBL guns had not been recovered by the Investigating Officer based on the diclosure statement suffered by those two accused. In fact both of them surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate with those licensed guns. Therefore, there was every possibility of tampering with the functional mode of those guns.
21. The ocular testimony and the medical evidence would go to establish that accused Tota Singh had caused gun shot injury on the back of the shoulder of PW7 Harbans Singh. There would have been no occasion for Tota Singh to surrender with the .12 bore gun in his possession, if at all the same was not used in the crime. Therefore, accused Tota Singh cannot be permitted to take advantage of the FSL report which would disclose that the cartridge case marked C/4 could not be matched with the .12 bore gun Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 13 surrendered by accused Tota Singh as the right barrel of the gun was not in working condition.
22. The evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused Manpreet Singh having intended to cause the death, of Iqbal Singh opened fire aiming at his chest and caused his death. Accused Gurcharan Singh armed with a dangerous weapon namely Takua caused injury on the forehead of PW8 Jagjit Singh, Accused Sadhu Singh son of Hakam Singh who was not armed with any weapon caused brick bat injury on the right hand of Namdar Singh and cheek of PW8 Jagjit Singh, Accused Paramjit Singh armed with Takua, which was a dangerous weapon, caused injury to Namdar Singh on his head. Accused Gamdoor Singh who was also not armed with any weapon caused injury to Namdar Singh and PW8 Jagjit Singh with brick bat and Accused Tota Singh opened gun shot fire and made an attempt to cause the death of PW7 Harbans Singh who received gun shot injury on the back side of his shoulder. Though there was an allegation as against accused Gurdev Singh that he caused Takua injury on the right shoulder of Namdar Singh, we find that the medical evidence belied such a version. Therefore, accused Gurdev Singh is entitled to acquittal.
23. In our considered view, had the accused shared the common object and in prosecution of the common object they launched attack on the accused, they would not have chosen to use the reverse side of Takua to cause injury. None of the accused had Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 14 used the sharp edged portion of the Takua to cause injury. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe the version that all the accused launched attack on the accused party in furtherance of their common object. The accused who are found guilty are liable to the individual act they committed.
24. It is brought to our notice that the complainant Namdar Singh had already approached the Civil Forum praying for compensation, invoking the Fatal Accident Act. The complainant is at liberty to pursue the suit he has already filed. Further, the facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant enhancement of the punishment awarded by the trial court.
25. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is modified and the accused Manpreet Singh is convicted under Section 302 IPC and is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default, to undergo a further period of three months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Gurcharan Singh is convicted under Section 324 IPC. It is found that he had already undergone 1 year and 7 months of rigorous imprisonment. He is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. Accused Sadhu Singh son of Hakam Singh is convicted under Section 323 IPC and is sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He had already undergone the above period of sentence. Therefore, the bail Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 15 bond executed by him shall stand discharged. Accused Paramjit Singh is convicted under Section 324 IPC and is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He had already undergone the aforesaid period of sentence. Therefore, the bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. Accused Gamdoor Singh is convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He had undergone the aforesaid period of sentence. Therefore, the bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. Accused Tota Singh is convicted under Section 307 IPC and is sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of `5000/- and in default, to undergo a further period of two months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Gurdev Singh is acquitted of the charges framed as against him. Accused Manpreet Singh and accused Tota Singh shall surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, within 10 days from the date of this judgment, failing which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur shall take steps to arrest the accused by issuing warrant and send them to jail to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008 qua appellant Manpreet Singh stands dismissed and qua accused Gurcharan Singh stands allowed in part. Criminal Appeal No. D-714- DB of 2008 qua accused Sadhu Singh, accused Paramjit Singh and accused Gamdoor Singh is allowed iin part, qua accused Tota Singh stands dismissed and qua accused Gurdev Singh stands allowed. Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-679-DB of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. D- 714-DB of 2008, Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009. 16 Criminal Revision No. 2287 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2009 stand dismissed.
(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE October 28, 2013 p.singh Singh Parvinder 2013.11.12 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document