Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hoshiar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 February, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001
Date of decision : 14-2-2011
Hoshiar Singh and others ... Appellants
Versus.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal and Mr. Sanjiv Minhans, Advocates,
for the appellants
Mr. S.S.Dhaliwal, Addl. AG Punjab
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby in case FIR No. 24 dated 11.4.1996 registered under Section 302/452/34 IPC at Police Station Bassi Pathana, the present appellants-accused have been convicted under Section 302, 302/34, 323, 323/34 IPC. Under Section 302 IPC, accused Hoshiar Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year; under Section 302/34 accused Karamjit Singh, Charanjit Singh and Kulwant Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year each; under Section 323 IPC accused Karamjit Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months while under Section 323/34 IPC his co-accused Hoshiar Singh, Charanjit Singh and Kulwant Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 2 six months each and under Section 323 IPC accused Charanjit Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months while under Section 323/34 IPC his co-accused Hoshiar Singh, Karamjit Singh and Kulwant Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.4.1996, complainant Surinder Kaur got recorded her statement to the police stating that two days prior to 11.4.1996, her husband Satnam Singh, since deceased, cut a joke on Bhupinder Kaur, i.e. wife of her husband's younger brother (Devar) Hoshiar Singh which was not liked by Hoshiar Singh and Bhupinder Kaur and due to this, there was a quarrel between them on 10.4.1996. As per the complainant, her father Hazara Singh came to reconcile the differences between them. Thereafter, at about 9 PM said Hazara Singh went to sleep in the Verandah while she(complainant) along with her son Gurjinder Singh and husband Satnam Singh were sleeping in the room after bolting the door from inside and the electric light was on. At about 10.30 PM, Hoshiar Singh along with Karamjit Singh, Charanjit Singh and Kulwant Singh came armed with Dang and Kulwant Singh then raised a Lalkara asking Satnam Singh to come out from the room as he was to be taught a lesson for making a filthy joke to Bhupinder Kaur. Due to fear, complainant and others remained inside. However, the accused entered the room after breaking open the door. Then Kulwant Singh again raised Lalkara not to spare Satnam Singh, whereafter Karamjit Singh gave Soti blow which landed on the fore-head of Satnam Singh; Charanjit Singh then dealt Soti blow on the right arm of Satnam Singh and Hoshiar Singh dealt Bala blow on the head of Satnam Singh, due to which Satnam Singh fell down. When Hazara Singh tried to rescue Satnam Singh, Karamjit Singh again gave Soti blow on the left ear of Satnam Singh. Thereafter, accused ran away along with their respective weapons. While Satnam Singh was being taken to hospital by Surinder Kaur and Hazara Singh, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. On the basis of the said statement of Surinder Kaur, complainant, the present case came to be registered against the accused persons. An inquest report on the dead body of Satnam Singh was prepared vide Exhibit PB. A rough site plan of the place of occurrence was Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 3 prepared vide Exhibit PN. Post-mortem examination on the dead-body was conducted. Pieces of wooden Bala smeared with blood and one check Parna smeared with blood were taken into possession after converting the same into parcel vide memo Exhibit PK. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the place of occurrence was got photographed. Accused were arrested followed by completion of other formalities.
Upon completion of investigation of the case, accused- appellants were challaned. After being produced in Court, accused were charged under Section 302, 302/34, 323, 323/34 IPC. All these accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Mrs. Salinder Kaur, PW-2 Gurjinder Singh, PW-3 Harbans Kaur, PW-4 Hazara Singh, PW-5 Karnail Singh, PW-6 HC Bhupinder Singh, PW-7 Gurcharan Singh, PW-8 Ashok Kumar, PW-9 Constable Amarjit Singh, PW-10 SPO Omkar Singh, PW-11 Surinder Kaur, PW-12 Om Parkash Sachdeva, Draftsman, PW-13 SI Sukhdev Singh, PW-14 SI Lakhbir Singh and after tendering into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner vide Exhibit PO, closed its evidence.
Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting them incriminating evidence qua them to which they pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Hoshiar Singh took up the plea that during the night of alleged occurrence, he was working at the tubewell in his fields and he came to know about the injuries of his brother in the morning and that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of his links with other co-accused. Accused Karamjit Singh, Charanjit Singh and Kulwant Singh took up the plea that Satnam Singh had received injuries at the hands of some unknown persons when he was working in his fields during night time and that they came to know about the occurrence only when the police came to arrest them. They further took up the plea that they had been implicated falsely in the case at the instance of Hazara Singh, father-in-law of Satnam Singh deceased.
In defence evidence, accused examined DW-1 Amarjit Singh who stated that accused Karamjit Singh and Charanjit Singh belong to his village and their house adjoins his house and on 11.4.1996 at about 12-00/1- 00 noon, the police had come to the house of the accused and took them to Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 4 police station for investigation purposes and later on, he came to know that they have been implicated in the murder case of Satnam Singh.
The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 held all the accused persons guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal by them.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the appellants has argued that the occurrence had taken place on 10.4.1996 whereas the FIR was lodged on the following day at 11.15 AM and thus, there is a delay of 12 hours in lodging the FIR and this period has been used for concocting a false case against the accused. The contention is meritless. The delay, if satisfactorily explained, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that there was any deliberate delay by the witnesses. In fact, first of all, conveyance had been arranged for removing Satnam Singh to the hospital and had rather removed him to the hospital but since he died on the way, they returned back to the village. Obviously, on account of the death of Satnam Singh, the entire family was under shock and the element of fear must be in their minds as murder of their near dear had taken place within their view. Complainant in this case is Surinder Kaur, widow of the deceased and she would not dar to go to the police station in the dark to lodge a report; however, on the following day, the matter was immediately reported to the police at 8.35 AM and the formal FIR was subsequently recorded in the police station at 11.15 AM. In this back-drop of the facts, the delay, if any, has been satisfactorily explained causing no dent to the case of the prosecution.
Deceased Satnam Singh was the real brother of accused-
appellant Hoshiar Singh. Karamjit Singh and Charanjit Singh are the brothers-in-law of said Hoshiar Singh as their sister Bhupinder Kaur was married with Hoshiar Singh just two months prior whereas Kulwant Singh appellant is the maternal uncle of said Bhupinder Kaur, Karamjit Singh and Charanjit Singh. The prosecution has based their case on the evidence of PW-2 Gurjinder Singh, son of the deceased; PW-3 Harbans Kaur mother of the deceased; PW-4 Hazara Singh father-in-law of the deceased and PW-11 Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 5 Surinder Kaur widow of the deceased. Counsel for the appellants has assailed their testimonies on the ground that all the witnesses had turned hostile and were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no dispute to this fact; however, hostility of the witnesses was only qua appellant Hoshiar Singh. The reasons are obvious, he being closely related to the deceased, i.e. his real brother; otherwise all the witnesses are consistent in their testimony so far as participation of other accused- appellants, namely, Karamjit Singh, Charanjit Singh and Kulwant Singh is concerned. Add to this, a close look to the testimony of PW-11 Surinder Kaur, widow of the deceased, indicates that though she was in grief and shock but she came out of that trauma and also deposed against accused- appellant Hoshiar Singh in her cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. She though stated in examination-in-chief that brothers of Bhupinder Kaur and their maternal uncle had come to their house excluding Hoshiar Singh, stated to be present somewhere in the village but when she was cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor after getting her declared hostile, she first admitted that her statement was recorded by the police. In further cross-examination, she categorically stated "It is correct that at about 10.30 P.M. on that day my husband's brother Hoshiar Singh accused armed with Balla and his friend Karamjit and Charanjit accompanied him. The maternal uncle of my husband younger brother's wife name Kulwant Singh was also with them armed with Soti. Today they are present in the Court". She also stated in cross-examination "It is correct that the accused attempted to break open the door. Hazara Singh raised an alarm, to desist them from doing so. It is correct that all the four accused came inside the room and went back after murdering my husband". She further stated that "Charanjit Singh, Karamjit Singh and their maternal uncle Kulwant Singh entered the house. The fourth man who entered the house was the name Hoshiar Singh who is the brother of Satnam Singh, my husband. The four accused are the same who are present in the court today. They were armed at Balla, Sottia and Saria. xxx xxx xxx. All the accused caused injuries to Satnam Singh with their respective weapons. xxx xxx xxx. My son, my father-in-law, my father also witnessed the occurrence. We raised alarm." She during cross- examination by the defence counsel subsequently denied the suggestion that in fact her husband had gone to the fields in the morning and his dead body Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 6 was found lying in the fields and all the four accused were implicated falsely at the instance of her father Hazara Singh. It is equally settled law that evidence of hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of prosecution or accused but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of evidence which is consistent with the case of prosecution or defence may be accepted. This has been held in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, 1997(1) RCR(Criminal) 55(SC). Ramesh Prasad Misra's case(supra) has been duly followed in Jodhraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 172(SC), wherein it has been observed that merely because a witness, for one reason or the other, has, to some extent, resiled from his earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. The Courts even in such a situation are not powerless. Keeping in view the materials available on record, it is permissible for a Court of law to rely upon a part of the testimony of the witness who has been declared hostile. PW-11 Surinder Kaur is the first informant in this case and widow of the deceased and would be the last person to implicate the innocent. Her said version indicating the participation of accused-appellant Hoshair Singh is in consonance with her earlier statement made to the police on the basis of which the present case was registered. She uttered the true narration of the occurrence during her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no reason to disbelieve her statement. No doubt, she is the solitary witness so far as involvement of accused-appellant Hoshiar Singh is concerned but the corroboration in the statement of a solitary witness is not a rule of law but one of the caution as an assurance and as indicated above, she did not succumb to the pressure and during cross-examination uttered exactly what had happened on that day, which as stated above, is in consonance with her earlier statement made to the police. The occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased and her presence and that of other witnesses including Hazara Singh who had come to their house, is quite natural. No doubt, the witnesses are related to the deceased but this itself cannot be said to be suffice to discard their statements. There is no absolute law that evidence of a relation witness is not entitled to any weight. The statements of all the witnesses, so far as other accused are concerned, are consistent and as discussed above, the statement of PW-11 Surinder Kaur also inspires Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 7 confidence so far as participation of accused Hoshiar Singh is concerned.
The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. PW-1 Dr. Salinder Kaur who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Satnam Singh on 11.4.1996 at 3 PM, has opined that the time elpased between death and the post-mortem was within 24 hours and thus, is in consonance with the time of occurrence given by the prosecution and so as the seat of the injuries.
Counsel for the appellants next contends that there was hardly any motive to commit the crime. The contention is again meritless. Variation in human nature being so vast, murders are known to have been actuated by much lesser motive. Where direct evidence regarding commission of offence is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and not open to reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based on this.
The defence of the appellants that Satnam Singh received injuries in the fields at the hands of some unknown persons, has no legs to stand and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court.
In view of the discussion made above, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
( HEMANT GUPTA ( ARVIND KUMAR )
JUDGE JUDGE
February 14, 2011
JS
Cr. A. No. 697-DB of 2001 8