Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh A vs State on 7 February, 2017
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RajjaSTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 837/2008
1. Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Lal Singh @ Deewan Singh, by
caste Raisikh, R/o Village Balam Balai, at present r/o Janta Preet Nagar,
Firozpur City (Punjab).
2. Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh s/o Shri Lal Singh @ Deewan Singh, by
caste Raisikh, R/o Village Balam Basai, at present R/o Poli Power Guwati
Ghatrond, Jabalpur (M.P.).
3. Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur w/o Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh, by
caste Raisikh, R/o Village Balam Basai, at present R/o Janta Preet Nagar,
Firozpur City (Punjab).
(At present confined in District Jail, Alwar)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
________________________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan PP ________________________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 07/02/2017 Per: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The case of the prosecution is that on 3.10.1973 at about 9:00 AM, in the revenue estate of Balam Basai, Police Station Kishangarbas, Lal Singh son of Sada Singh, Amar Singh, Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh and Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh all three sons of Lal Singh, accompanied by Mst. Jeet Kaur wife of Amar Singh, Mst. Chhindo d/o Lal Singh and Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur w/o Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh, (2 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] committed murder of Darbara Singh, Hukam Singh and Milkiyat Singh. Thus, in the Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) Rajja Singh gave description of triple murder by assigning injuries to accused. He also narrated the manner of the occurrence. On the basis of Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1), made by Rajja Singh, formal FIR (Exhibit-D/6) bearing No.111 dated 3.10.1973, was registered at Police Station Kishangarbas, for the offences under Sections 302, 347 and 34 IPC.
Rajja Singh named seven persons as accused, They all belong to the family of Lal Singh. Besides Lal Singh, his three sons namely Amar Singh, Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh and Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh, Mst. Jeet Kaur wife of Amar Singh, Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur wife of Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh and Mst. Chhindo daughter of Lal Singh were named as accused.
Three accused i.e. appellants to instant appeal, namely Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh, Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh and Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur absconded. They were apprehended thirty-three years after the occurrence. Remaining four accused namely Lal Singh, Amar Singh, Mst. Jeet Kaur and Mst. Chhindo were sent for trial. They were tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No.16/1974. The said court vide judgment dated 30.9.1974, acquitted Mst. Chhindo but recorded conviction of Lal Singh, Amar Singh and Mst. Jeet Kaur. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Lal Singh, Amar Singh and Mst. Jeet Kaur filed appeals bearing D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 705/1974 and D.B. Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 746/1974 titled as Lal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Jeet Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan, respectively. The said appeals vide judgment dated 10.8.1979 were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.
The present appellants were arrested on 5.10.1973, but later (3 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] they absconded, however, after their apprehension, they were again sent for trial.
Mr. Rahul Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants, has very fairly submitted that the present is the case of triple murder. As per prosecution story, three deceased persons, namely Darbara Singh, Hukam Singh and Milkiyat Singh, in the early hours of morning had gone to their fields. When they were returning from their fields at around 9:00 AM, they were way laid near the field of Chhotey Lal and Idri by accused persons i.e. Surendra Singh, Amar Singh, Darshan Singh, Lal Singh, Kartar Kaur, Chhindo and Jeet Kaur. Surendra Singh was holding a twelve bore single barrel rifle, Amar Singh was holding the same type of weapon, Darshan Singh was having a pistol and Lal Singh had barchhi in his hand. Three ladies were alleged to be armed with lathis. The case of the prosecution is that as and when the deceased persons came near the accused party, Surendra Singh challenged them and fired a shot at Darbara Singh, Amar Singh fired a shot at Milkiyat Singh whereas Darshan Singh fired the shot from his pistol on Hukam Singh. All the three victims fell down at the spot. Thereafter, male and female members of the family gave beating to the deceased with Barchhi and lathis. Surendra Singh also caused injuries to Rajja Singh who had reached at the scene of incident. He caused injuries with Barchhi on the leg of Rajja Singh. Lal Singh caused injury with lathi on the head of Rajja Singh, as result of which, he fell down on the ground and thereafter, was beaten by female culprits. The incident was witnessed by eleven years old girl, Mst. Rukki, sister of Milkiyat Singh deceased, who at that time had gone to fields with tea for the victims. The culprits after causing injuries decamped from the spot. Immediately, after villagers learnt about the triple murder, there was outrage in the village. SHO, reached the village Balam Basai and recorded the statement (Exhibit-P/1) (4 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] at 4:00 PM of Rajja Singh.
As stated earlier, on the basis of the said Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1), a formal FIR (Exhibit-D/6) was registered at Police Station Balam Basai.
We need not notice the injuries on the person of deceased Darbara Singh, Milkiyat Singh and Hukam Singh. The deceased Darbara Singh received ten injuries and death had occurred due to head injury, fracture of skull and laceration of brain. The said injuries were ante- morten in nature. The deceased Milkiyat Singh had suffered six injuries. His abdominal cavity was full of blood and fecal matter. Intestines were perforated on right side at six places. The peritoneum was also perforated anteriorly and posteriorly under the wounds. The death had occurred due to gun shot injury on the abdomen, fracture of skull, haemorrhage and shock. The injuries were ante-morten in nature. Hukam Singh had suffered seven injuries. On internal examination, fracture of skull was found and the cause of death was gun shot injury to the head.
It has come in evidence that the pellets from the shot fired by Darshan Singh had hit Rukki Bai on the right hand. The injury report of Rukko Bai (P.W.1) contains only one injury and that is abrasion on left forearm.
Rajja Singh had suffered eight injuries, out of which, six were simple and two were grievous in nature being fractures. Injuries suffered by him have been proved on record by Dr. G.R. Khandelwal (P.W.2).
Since the accused-appellants were put to trial after thirty- three years of the occurrence, after conviction of the co-accused namely Lal Singh, Amar Singh and Mst. Jeet Kaur, affirmed by the High Court, in the present case, the prosecution has only examined three witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses, who died meanwhile has been relied by the (5 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] trial court under Section 299 Cr.P.C.
Rukko Bai (P.W.1) in the court has reiterated that the occurrence had taken place on 3.10.1973 at 9:00 AM. This witness at 8:00 AM, had gone to the fields to serve tea to her brother Milkiyat Singh, Fufa Hukam Singh and uncle Darbara Singh. This witness deposed in the court that her brother Milkiyat Singh, Fufa Hukam Singh and uncle Darbara Singh after ploughing fields were returning. At that time, accused had concealed themselves in the field of Chhotumal. She deposed that suddenly, Suren Singh raised an exhortation and thereafter, Suren Singh fired a shot from his gun at Darbara Singh. Darbara Singh fell on the spot. Then Amar Singh fired a shot at Milkiyat Singh. Darshan Singh had fired a shot from pistol and said shot hit Hukam Singh, who fell at the spot. This witness stated that Lal Singh was armed with Farsa and when all three were lying fallen, Lal Singh was causing injuries. This witness further stated that at that time, all the three ladies of the family of accused namely Kartar Kaur, Jeeto Bai and Chhindo Bai came running. They were armed with lathis. They also started causing injuries to the deceased person who were lying fallen.
Dr. G.R. Khandelwal (P.W.2) proved on record the injury report (Exhibit-P/4) of Rajja Singh.
Ishwar Singh (P.W.3) is witness to the preparation of the site plan (Exhibit-P/2) and the recoveries effected from the spot.
The trial Judge relied upon the deposition of Rajja Singh, Dr. G.R. Khandelwal (P.W.2), Gango Bai, Dr. P.S. Agarwal and Mahendra Singh, who appeared in the court in the earlier trial. The statement of Rajja Singh was recorded on 29.4.1974, Dr. D.R. Sharma was examined on 30.4.1974, Gango Bai was also examined on the said date i.e. 30.4.1974, whereas Dr. P.S. Agarwal was examined on 18.9.1974 and Mahendra Singh (6 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] was examined on 18.9.1974. The trial court relied upon the statements of the earlier witnesses recorded by invoking Section 299 Cr.P.C., as it has come in evidence that these witnesses before the subsequent apprehension of the accused had died.
Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor, has placed on record the report received from the office of Superintendent, Central Jail, Alwar, dated 23.9.2016, wherein it is stated that during custody, Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh son of Lal Singh on 12.9.2012 had died at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, while undergoing treatment.
Mr. Rahul Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants, is unable to distinguish the case of Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh from the case of Lal Singh and Amar Singh, whose conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the High Court in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 705/1974 and D.B. Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 746/1974, as the said court relied upon the testimony of Rukko Bai (P.W.1), Gango Bai and Rajja Singh.
Be that as it may, we ourselves have perused the testimony of witnesses. It has been specifically stated by the witnesses that the appellant Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh had fired a shot from his pistol and the said shot had hit the thigh of the deceased Hukam Singh.
The learned counsel for the appellants has only advanced one argument that since appellant Darshan Singh had fired at thigh of deceased Hukam Singh, we should hold that he was not having intention to cause murder of Hukam Singh. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh had not aimed the shot on the head, chest or vital parts of the body of deceased Hukam Singh.
We are unable to accept the solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant Darshan Singh @ (7 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] Gurudeep Singh was member of unlawful assembly. The said unlawful assembly had committed three murders in quick succession. Therefore, the present appellant Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh shared intention with the co-accused Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh and Amar Singh, who had caused murder of Darbara Singh and Milkiyat Singh. Therefore, the only arguments advanced before us is rejected.
However, we are of the view that so far the case of the appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur is concerned, the same is at different footing. It has come in evidence that Lal Singh was armed with Barchhi and after firing shots Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh had also caused injuries with lathi. Therefore, we are of the view that other injuries caused with blunt weapon can be equally caused by Lal Singh and other male accused. It has also come in evidence that after shots were fired, three ladies came running armed with lathis. Rukko Bai (P.W.1) in cross-examination has very fairly admitted that the allegation levelled qua the ladies is not noted in her statement Exhibit-D/1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating agency. We shall reproduce the following portion from the cross-examination of Rukko Bai (P.W.1) as under:-
"eSus iqfyl dks ;g crk fn;k Fkk fd rhuks vkSjrks rFkk ykyflag us rhuks et:oku ds lkFk jktkflag ds vkus ls igys ekjihV dh Fkh | iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh-1 es^ D;ks^ ugh fy[kk eq>s irk ugh|"
Hence, we cannot rule out that the complainant party had resorted to large scale over implication of the family of Lal Singh, by naming ladies of the house. No specific injury was attributed to the accused appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur, in the initial version.
Relying upon the statement/Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1), in which no injury was specified to the accused appellant Kartar Kaur @ (8 of 8) [CRLA-837/2008] Surendra Kaur, we are of the view that benefit of doubt can be granted to her. Thus, in the present case, to rule out over implication of the accused, who is a lady, we are of the view that as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt can be granted to the appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur, by sifting grain from the chaff.
Consequently, we accept the present appeal on behalf of the appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur by setting aside the conviction pronounced and sentence awarded upon her by the trial court.
However, the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant namely Darshan Singh @ Gurudeep Singh is dismissed.
In view of the report dated 23.9.2016 submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the present appeal filed on behalf of appellant Suren Singh @ Mahendra Singh is disposed of having abated.
In view of above, we order that the appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case.
Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and surety bond of the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant Kartar Kaur @ Surendra Kaur on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
(PRAKASH GUPTA)J. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Mak/-