Delhi District Court
Sc No. 111/04, Fir No. 1/04 1 State vs Gurmukh Singh on 31 January, 2007
SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 1 State Vs Gurmukh Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR, ASJ,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 111/04
FIR No.1/04
PS Connaught Place
U/s 302 IPC
State Vs Gurmukh Singh
S/o Jaswant Singh
R/o Basti Jodhewali
Gurudwara Gali
Sardar Nagar
Kailash Nagar,
Ludhiana, Punjab.
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution case in brief is that the accused has no fixed residence and had been doing Sewa (religious service) in Gurudwara Sahib and Rakab Ganj in Delhi. He partakes his food in Lunger of these Gurudwaras and had taken shelter in a newly constructed toilet at Baba Karak Singh Marg as the same had not been opened for public use. As per prosecution case one Boby a Sikh person also used to take shelter in the said toilet. On 31.12.2003 deceased Jaspal who was a taxi driver and who used to SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 2 State Vs Gurmukh Singh meet said Boby at the said public toilet had drinks together in Khanna Market, Patel Nagar. Jaspal Singh (deceased) had with him a sum of of Rs. 1700/- which was a payment of taxi fare. After eating and drinking, deceased left Boby there and went to his house, where he found his purse containing money missing. Deceased had a doubt that Boby had stolen his purse and accordingly deceased along with his friend Inder Mohan (PW4) went to the above stated public toilet where the said Boby used to reside. When Jaspal Singh (deceased) made inquiries about the said Boby from a lady, accused came out from the toilet and joined the conversation. It is alleged that Jaspal Singh also inquired from the accused about Boby. Accused told him that some articles of Boby were lying in the bath room but he did not tell when Boby will come there. It is alleged that when deceased told about his stolen money, a heated arguments took place between Jaspal (deceased) and the accused. Accused took out his SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 3 State Vs Gurmukh Singh Kirpan and gave blow of the same on the chest of Jaspal Singh. It is alleged that this incident took place in the presence of Inder Mohan (PW4) the friend of the deceased. Accused also assaulted him with the said Kirpan but PW4 Inder Mohan saved himself by running away. Jaspal Singh who was bleeding from his chest also ran away. With the help of PW10 HC Kanwar Pal who met PW4 on the way and who was on official duty at T point of Baba Kharak Singh Mark, Bangla Sahib Lane took Jaspal to RML Hospital in the taxi of the deceased. One lady Ct. Prafulla who was on PCR duty informed that a person is lying unconscious on Baba Kharak Singh Marg and this information was recorded as DD no. 41A Ex. PW22/A at 12:27 AM (night) in PS Connaught Place. Accordingly PW22 SI Rakesh Chand along with Ct. Virender went to the spot. When they reached there they came to know that injured had been removed to RML Hospital and accordingly both of them reached there. SI Rakesh Chand collected MLC Ex. PW1/A SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 4 State Vs Gurmukh Singh of Jaspal Singh and he was declared fit for statement by the concerned doctor. The statement of Jaspal Ex. PW22/B was recorded by PW22 SI Rakesh Chand. He wrote a rukka Ex. PW22/C upon it and sent Ct. Virender (PW11) police station to lodge the present FIR. In the meanwhile duty Ct. Netrapal (PW7) handed over to him one sealed parcel containing blood stained shirt and Baniyan with responding cut mark which were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witness Inder Mohan (PW4). Thereafter he recorded detailed statement of Jaspal Singh under Section 161 CrPC, which is Ex. PW22/D. He recorded the statements of PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee and one PW17 Swarn Singh who were the eye witnesses of the incident. At the instance of PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee Investigating Officer prepared a site plan Ex. PW22/E.
2. It is alleged that injured was discharged from the hospital on 1.1.2004 but was again admitted in the SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 5 State Vs Gurmukh Singh hospital on 3.1.2004 and he died in the morning on 4.1.2004. On 4.1.2004 Investigating Officer received the copy of DD entry no. 6A, copy of which is Ex. PW22/F in which it was informed by one Ct. Rajender, who was on duty at RML Hospital that Jaspal Singh has expired. Accordingly Investigating Officer along with Ct. Virender went to RML Hospital. He collected the death summery Ex. PW3/A of the injured and the death report Ex. PW22/G. He prepared inquest form Ex. PW22/H and moved an application Ex. PW22/J for conducting the post mortem of the deceased. The post mortem of the dead body Ex. PW8/A was conducted and thereafter the investigation of the present case was entrusted to Additional SHO Inspector Sanjay Singh (PW23). Inspector Sanjay Singh was informed by Swarn Singh (PW17) that he knew the accused and he might be available at Gurudwara Rakab Ganj. Accused Gurmukh Singh was apprehended. on interrogation he made a disclosure statement Ex. PW17/A SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 6 State Vs Gurmukh Singh and from his personal search one Kirpan was recovered. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/N after preparing its sketch Ex. PW22/B. Investigating Officer got prepared a scaled site plan Ex. PW13/A by SI Mahesh Kumar (PW13). The exhibits were sent to FSL. The Investigating Officer got compared the dimension of the weapon in question and injury no.1 in the post mortem. As per the report of Dr. Rajeev Sharma the injury no.1 stated in the post mortem report could have been caused by the weapon seized by the Investigating Officer. After completing of the investigation the challan was filed against the accused in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate who committed the same to the Sessions Court after complying with the provisions under Section 207 CrPC.
3. On these accusations a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 7 State Vs Gurmukh Singh
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Sanjeev Miglani CMO who examined Jaspal Singh (deceased) and testified that there was a stab wound and bleeding in the left lower chest. The size of the wound was 2.5 cm long. The patient was referred to surgery emergency. This witness proved MLC Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee and PW4 Inder Mohan are the witnesses to the incident. PW3 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar prepared death summery Ex. PW3/A of the deceased. PW5 Baljinder Singh identified the dead body of Jaspal Singh. PW6 HC Sukhbir Singh recorded FIR Ex. PW6/A. PW7 Ct. Netra Singh was the duty officer in the RML Hospital and he testified that clothes of Jaspal were sealed by the doctor on duty in a pulanda and handed over the same to him. He further handed over this pulanda to Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW7/A. PW8 Dr. Amit Kochar Senior Resident Department of Forensic Medical, Lady Harding Medical College conducted post mortem on SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 8 State Vs Gurmukh Singh the dead body of Jaspal Singh. He noticed following injuries :-
1. Stab wound, 4 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm abdominal cavity.
2. Surgical incised wound 24 cm x 0.5 cm x 5 cm.
3. Lleostomy wound 4.5 cm x 1 cm x viscera deep.
4. Surgical incised wound 3 x 0.3 cm x viscera deep.
5. The doctor opined the cause of death in his post mortem Ex. PW8/A as under :-
Hemorrhage shock as a result of stab injury to abdomen. Injury No.1 is antemortem in nature and could have been produced by pointed sharp-edged cutting weapon and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.......
6. PW9 Santokh Singh is the father of deceased and he testified that on 5.1.2004 Inder Mohan had identified the accused as person who had killed his son.
7. PW10 HC Kanwar Pal Singh testified that on the intervening night of 31.12.2003 and 1.1.2004 at about 12:00 mid night two Sardars namely Inder Mohan (PW4) and deceased Jaspal Singh came in car and made attempt SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 9 State Vs Gurmukh Singh to park their car. However they were prevented to do so by him. Therefore both of them left in the same car. After sometime both these persons came one after another to him and made inquires about the public toilet which was not in use. When PW10 could not give any information, both of them left towards Hanuman Mandir. PW10 further testified that after 15 to 20 minutes Inder Mohan came running and told him that the other Sardar who was with him had been stabbed. Thereafter PW10 accompanied him and found Jaspal Singh lying at the distance of 50 paces from petrol pump towards Hanuman Mandir at some distance from the public toilet. Jaspal Singh was bleeding profusely. Therefore PW10 and Inder Mohan removed Jaspal Singh in the car to RML Hospital.
8. PW11 Ct. Virender Singh on receiving DD No. 41 A went along with SI Rakesh (PW22) to the RML Hospital.
Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and sent PW11 Ct. Virender Singh to lodge the FIR. On 4.1.2004 he again SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 10 State Vs Gurmukh Singh joined investigation and in his presence Investigating Officer seized the medical exhibits of the deceased from the hospital vide Ex. PW11/A. PW12 Dr. Rajiv Sharma examined the weapon of offence and compared the same with injury no.1 and opined that the injury no.1 on the person of deceased could be caused by the weapon produced before him.
9. PW13 SI Mahesh is the draft man who prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW13/A at the instance of Investigating Officer. PW14 A. K. Srivastava Senior Scientific Officer FSL Delhi proved his report Ex. PW14/A and opined that the Kirpan i.e. the weapon of offence was having human blood stains but the group of blood could not be determined. PW15 SI Vijay took nine sealed pulandas from MHC(M) Connaught Place on the direction of Investigating Officer and deposited the same with FSL Rohini. PW16 Ct. Ashok Kumar took four sealed pulandas from MHC(M) and deposited the same to FSL Rohini. PW14 SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 11 State Vs Gurmukh Singh Swarn Singh is the eye witness. However he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW18 Amar Pal Singh, Senior Scientific Assistant Chemistry FSL Rohini proved his report Ex. PW14/C and opined that no common poison was detected after analysis. PW19 HC Pal Singh the MHC(M). He proved the relevant entries which are Ex. PW19/A to Ex. PW19/G. PW20 Mukesh Kumar PA to Head of Department Forensic Department Lady Harding College, New Delhi testified that on 18.5.2004 he handed over the sealed case property i.e. weapon along with two sample seals, sketch of weapon and photo copy of post mortem report to Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW20/A. PW21 SI Ravinder Malik testified that on 11.5.2004 at the direction of Inspector Sanjay Singh Additional SHO I took the sealed pulanda containing Kirpan to FSL along with letter from Additional SHO seeking subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence and copy of post mortem report and deposited the same in Forensic Medicine SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 12 State Vs Gurmukh Singh Department, Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi.
10. PW22 SI Rakesh Chand is the initial Investigating Officer. After the death of Jaspal Singh, PW23 Inspector Sanjay Singh took over the investigation since 5.1.2004. He completed the investigation in the present case.
11. In statement under Section 313 CrPC each and every circumstance was put to the accused but he denied the same for want of knowledge. He also examined DW1 Inspector Amarjeet Singh Bajwa SHO Patel Nagar. This witness testified that Inder Mohan (PW4) is a history sheeter of Bundle A of PS Patel Nagar and he is involved in ten cases of the said police station. Out of which as many as seven cases are hurt cases. DW2 SI Sunil Kumar also proved this fact.
12. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that accused should be given benefit of doubt on following grounds :
(a). Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the first SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 13 State Vs Gurmukh Singh statement/complaint Ex.
PW22/B of deceased Jaspal Singh in which he has stated that his friend Inder Mohan (PW4) had taken the car of deceased to park the same towards Hanuman Mandir when the present incident took place. It is argued that this shows that Inder Mohan (PW4) was not present at the spot where the deceased was injured.
Therefore the testimony of PW4 Inder Mohan is an afterthought and unworthy of reliance. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that DW1 and DW2 have proved that Inder Mohan (PW4) is a bad character and has criminal antecedents. Therefore testimony of such witness should not be treated worthy of credence.
(b). PW17 Swarn Singh the eye witness is also turned hostile and has stated that no such incident took place in his presence. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 14 State Vs Gurmukh Singh this shows that police has falsely put up the witnesses to prove its case.
(c) Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that since police is over zealous in making false witnesses as indicated from the point 1 and 2 as mentioned above, testimony of PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee be also not relied upon. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the cross examination of PW2 in which he has specifically testified that he was beaten up by the police at the spot and thumb impression were obtained on several papers. He testified that although he had seen the quarrel taking place at the spot but he did not see who had stabbed whom.
13. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the opinion that a witness cannot be held to be unworthy of credit simply because he is having criminal antecedents. It is not brought on record as to what enmity PW4 Inder SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 15 State Vs Gurmukh Singh Mohan was having against the accused. There is no reason as to why he would falsely depose against the accused. PW4 might be having a criminal record but his credit has to be impeached in accordance with Section 155 Indian Evidence Act 1872. I reproduce the Section which is as under :
155. Impeaching credit of witness. - The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him :-
(1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 16 State Vs Gurmukh Singh
14. There is nothing on record which is covered under Section 155 of Indian Evidence Act, by which the credit of this witness could have been impeached. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the statement Ex. PW22/B (the dying declaration) of deceased in which he merely states that PW4 Inder Mohan was sent by him to park the car and does not state that when the incident took place, Inder Mohan had returned back. I am of the opinion that statement Ex. PW22/B was written by the Investigating Officer when Jaspal Singh (deceased) was badly injured. In such a situation he might not have been able to state all the facts correctly. However in his further statement Ex. PW22/D (second dying declaration) was recorded on 1.1.2004 in which deceased has specifically stated that Inder Mohan had returned back after parking the vehicle and was accompanying him when accused attacked him. Therefore I am convince that the omission in the initial complaint/dying declaration Ex. PW22/F in which the SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 17 State Vs Gurmukh Singh deceased omitted to state that Inder Mohan was with him at the time of incident is of no importance. When a person is in gravely injured condition, it would be highly impractical to suppose that he would give each details of the incident. PW4 Inder Mohan has specifically testified that after parking the vehicle he came back and saw that deceased was talking to a person and was making inquiries about one Boby. In the meantime accused came outside the toilet and attacked him with his Kirpan. It would be relevant here to mention that accused did not put even a single suggestion to this witness suggesting that this witness was not present at the time of incident. Rather the stress of cross examination is that due to darkness and that identification of accused by him for the first time in the court is unworthy of credence.
15. In view of this defence and the trustworthy testimony of PW4 its stand proved beyond reasonable doubt that this witness was very much present at the spot at the time of SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 18 State Vs Gurmukh Singh offence. Now this court is to see as to whether the identification of accused by PW4 is doubtful or trustworthy. Memory of a person and his power of observation differs from person to person and from situation to situation. In the present case Inder Mohan appears to have seen the accused for sufficient time and from close quarters which has enabled him to identify the accused in the court. This identification of the accused is further corroborated by testimony of PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee. PW2 in his cross examination admits that he used to stay near public toilet on the Patri and he knew accused as he also used to stay there. Therefore it is clear that at the time of incident PW2 was present at the spot and it is natural for him to see the incident. His testimony examination in chief in which he has specifically testified that accused had stabbed Jaspal with his Kirpan is worthy of credence. In fact he has narrated the incident in detail in his examination in chief. However the cross examination of the witness was SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 19 State Vs Gurmukh Singh conducted after more than one month of examination in chief of PW2. In cross examination not only the witness turned hostile but at the further examination by Ld. APP he totally denied that he had made any statement in the court that accused had stabbed Jaspal. This denial of his own statement made in the court makes it clear that this witness has been won over and is not coming truthfully at the time of cross examination.
16. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that PW17 Swarn Singh has turned hostile. However I am of the opinion that in his examination in chief he has stated that one Bengali (i.e. PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee) had told him that a quarrel had taken place. This testimony corroborates the prosecution case that PW2 was present at the spot ad was witness to the incident. Therefore the presence of PW2 at the spot and having seen the incident is well corroborated and I am left in no doubt that testimony of PW2 in which SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 20 State Vs Gurmukh Singh he has stated that accused had stabbed Jaspal is worthy of credence. Therefore even if the testimony of PW4 Inder Mohan regarding the identity of the accused is seen with doubt, the said doubt is removed by PW2 Ashok Kumar Banerjee.
17. Further more the PW23 Inspector Sanjay Singh (Investigating Officer) has testified that he arrested accused Gurmukh Singh on being identified by Swarn Singh (PW17). On interrogation accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PW17/A and from the personal search of the accused the Kirpan was recovered from his possession. As per the report Ex. PW14/B of Forensic Science Laboratory the human blood was found on this Kirpan. Accused has offered no explanation as to how the blood was present on his Kirpan. This Kirpan matched with injury no.1 mentioned in the post mortem report (as per the opinion Ex. PW12/A given by Dr. Rajiv Sharma (PW12).
18. Therefore the truthful testimony of PW4 and the SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 21 State Vs Gurmukh Singh testimony of PW2 in his cross examination are fully corroborated by the recovery of the Kirpan upon which the blood of human origin was found. Prosecution rightly draws full corroboration from the opinion of PW12 Dr. Rajiv Sharma that the Kirpan i.e. the weapon of offence matched with the fatal injury of the deceased.
19. In post mortem report Ex. PW8/A Dr. Amit Kochar has opined that injury no.1 is ante mortem in nature and could have been produced by pointed sharp edged weapon and sufficient to caused death in ordinary course of nature.
20. In view of this evidence I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed murder of Jaspal Singh. I therefore convict the accused under Section 302 IPC. Announced in the opne court on 31.1.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 22 State Vs Gurmukh Singh IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR, ASJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. 111/04 FIR No.1/04 PS Connaught Place U/s 302 IPC State Vs Gurmukh Singh S/o Jaswant Singh R/o Basti Jodhewali Gurudwara Gali Sardar Nagar Kailash Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 1.2.2007 Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict with counsel.
Arguments on sentence heard. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the present case is not rarest of the rare cases. Ld. APP also admits this situation. The offence was committed in spur of moment. There is no other criminal record of the convict. In these circumstances I sentence the SC No. 111/04, FIR No. 1/04 23 State Vs Gurmukh Singh convict to imprisonment for life and a fine in the sum of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Copy of judgement be supplied free of cost to the convict. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the opne court on 1.2.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi