Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parampal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 October, 2008
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Uma Nath Singh, Rajan Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001
Date of decision: October 03, 2008
Parampal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate with
Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This appeal emanates from judgment dated 24.3.2001, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he convicted the appellant Parampal Singh and his co-accused Mal Singh for offences under Sections 302, 201 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 302 IPC, in default whereof to further undergo RI for three months. Under Section 201 IPC, they were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default whereof to further RI for three months. Both the accused were further sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default whereof to further RI for three months.
The appeal preferred by accused Parampal Singh is before us Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 2 against the impugned judgment. The said appeal is, therefore, being taken up for hearing as the paper-book is complete and record has been received from the court below.
An FIR was registered on 3rd March, 1994, by SHO Anokh Singh of Police Station Lambi when he received a complaint from one Bishan Singh, who is the complainant in this case. Bishan Singh, who is resident of village Hasta Uttar Jhuge Lal Singh, Police Station Sadar Fazilka, made a statement that about one month prior to 3rd March, 1994, he along with Baggu Singh, Mal Singh and Parampal Singh (appellant) had gone to village Ghattian Wali. They had to carry one buffalo on a Peter Rehra to Village Rania on hire. Baggu Singh was the owner of Peter Rehra. Mal Singh was the driver of the said vehicle. For the purpose of carrying this buffalo, they had charged Rs.475/- as fare. The buffalo had been purchased by one Jagdev Singh from his father-in-law. On their way, they stayed in village Sainpal for the night. On the next day, all of them i.e. Baggu Singh, Mal Singh, Parampal Singh and Bishan Singh started from Village Sainpal towards their own village. However, on the way they stopped at Village Dabwali where there was a liquor- vend. Mal Singh purchased one bottle of liquor from that vend. Thereafter, Mal Singh, Parampal Singh and Baggu Singh started taking liquor. The complainant Bishan Singh being a Radha Swami, did not take liquor. After the drinking session was over, they started for their village. After they had covered a distance of about three miles from Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 3 village Dabwali, the Rehra developed a fault. Baggu Singh and Mal Singh, therefore, went back to village Dabwali to bring a mechanic. They brought the mechanic to repair the Rehra. However, they brought another bottle of liquor. So, while the mechanic started repairing the Rehra; Baggu Singh, Mal Singh and Parampal Singh again started drinking. After the Rehra was repaired, they again started for their village. Baggu Singh insisted that he would drive the Peter Rehra but Mal Singh refused. On this, Baggu Singh said that he was the owner of the Rehra and that he would drive. A quarrel ensued on this issue. It was 7/7.30 P.M. at that time. Both of them exchanged hot words, whereafter Mal Singh gave a kick blow to Baggu Singh, who fell down from the Rehra. Mal Singh kept on giving kick blows to him. Thereafter, Parampal Singh appellant alighted from the Rehra and put his leg on the neck of Baggu Singh and pressed it with force so that Baggu Singh could hardly speak. The complainant Bishan Singh intervened and asked Mal Singh and Parampal Singh why they were thrashing Baggu Singh. However, by that time it was realized that Baggu Singh had died. Mal Singh and Parampal Singh accused lifted the dead-body of Baggu Singh and put it in the Rehra. The complainant was also asked to sit in the Rehra. Both Parampal Singh and Mal Singh threatened the complainant not to disclose anything to anybody or raise any alarm, failing which he would be killed. Thereafter, Mal Singh started driving the Rehra and they reached at Pucca canal. Both Parampal Singh and Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 4 Mal Singh lifted the dead-body of Baggu Singh from his arms and legs and threw the same in the canal through the bridge. The said canal is known as Rajasthan Canal. Thereafter, they again threatened the complainant Bishan Singh that in case he raised any alarm or disclosed about the occurrence to anybody, he would be killed and would also be thrown in the Canal. Thereafter, Mal Singh and Parampal Singh went to Bija Nagar and took the complainant alongwith. Bija Nagar falls in the State of Rajasthan. They detained the complainant Bishan Singh there and started plying the Rehra. Bishan Singh was kept there for 22 days. On one particular day when they were away for purchasing some household articles, Bishan Singh managed to slip away. He was able to reach his village and narrated the entire sequence of events to Kartar Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased Baggu Singh. Thereafter, Bishan Singh along with Kartar Singh went to Police Station Lambi where they lodged a formal report. On the basis of the said report, the instant case was registered.
The police thereafter started the investigation and took the complainant to the place of occurrence. The complainant showed the place from where Baggu Singh's body was thrown in the Canal. Anokh Singh SHO, who was investigating the matter, prepared a rough site plan as pointed out by Bishan Singh. This site plan is Ex.PE.
Thereafter, Anokh Singh SHO continued with the investigation and after completion of the same, presented the challan in Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 5 the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate on 6th June, 1994. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
The accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. They, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, the main witness being Bishan Singh, the complainant, who stepped into the witness-box as PW1. Another witness Khazan Singh was examined by the prosecution to prove the receipt Ex. PB when the Peter Rehra was sold to Baggu Singh. This witness is PW2. Kartar Singh was examined as PW3 in respect of the disclosure statement suffered by Mal Singh accused on interrogation in his presence. Gurjeet Singh SI stepped into the witness-box as PW4 as he had interrogated both the accused and recovered the Peter Rehra. He had taken the Peter Rehra in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. He had also prepared a rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PE. Another police witness i.e. Head Constable Gurmit Singh is PW5, who was the witness to the recovery of the Rehra. PW6 is Inder Singh, who is witness to receipt Ex. PB. DSP Anokh Singh, who is PW7, recorded the FIR Ex. PA and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PF at the instance of Bishan Singh. Another witness Gurbachan Singh Draftsman is PW8 who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PG with correct marginal notes at the instance of Bishan Singh.
The defence did not lead any evidence. However, in their Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 6 statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied all the allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case due to party faction in the village.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that PW1 Bishan Singh, who was the star witness of the prosecution, was the uncle of the deceased and therefore, much reliance could not be placed on his evidence. Even PW3 Kartar Singh was brother-in-law of the deceased and therefore, was again an interested witness. According to the counsel, conviction could not be based on the basis of the statements of these two witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased. Learned counsel also laid emphasis on the fact that there was almost one month's delay in lodging the FIR and there was no explanation why Bishan Singh did not report the matter to the police earlier to 3rd of March, 1994. He further argued that it was very easy for Bishan Singh to slip away as according to his own statement, they used to sleep underneath the Peter Rehra. Learned counsel has also argued that the statement of Bishan Singh was further not believable because according to him, the dead-body of Baggu Singh was taken in the Peter Rehra from the place of occurrence towards the canal. However, the Police Station Lambi falls on the way and it could not be expected that the accused would take the dead-body of Baggu Singh on a path where Police Station falls on the way. Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 7 Moreover, it was also surprising that Bishan Singh did not raise any alarm while the body was being carried in the Peter Rehra. The counsel has also argued that the occurrence took place on the G.T. Road, which is always very busy. It is, therefore, surprising that there is no other witness to the said occurrence. Another limb of argument of the counsel is that conviction could not be based on the evidence of the sole eye- witness Bishan Singh, particularly when nature of injuries was not known as the body was not recovered.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the accused had been rightly convicted by the trial Court as there was sufficient evidence on record to show that they had committed the crime. Moreover, nothing had come on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any enmity or ill-will towards the accused, which would prompt them to implicate them falsely.
After hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusing the evidence on record, we find that Bishan Singh's statement is worthy of reliance as he has given an eye-witness account of the entire occurrence. He was cross-examined by the defence but nothing substantial could be elicited from him. As regards his inability to lodge the FIR earlier or to intervene in the occurrence, it may be noticed that it was not difficult for the accused, who were young and healthy, to intimidate Bishan Singh and force him to remain quite. Moreover, some fear in the mind of Bishan Singh could also be natural as a dastardly crime had been Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 8 committed by the accused in front of his eyes and he was being threatened with dire consequences.
The other loopholes, pointed out by the learned for the appellant in his arguments are also of no avail. In fact, Bishan Singh, in his statement, has very clearly explained why the body had not been recovered and why there had been delay in lodging the FIR. It was not possible for Bishan Singh to lodge a report earlier as he was in Bija Nagar in the State of Rajasthan and was being criminally intimidated by the accused. In view of the fact that the dead-body of Baggu Singh had been thrown in the Rajasthan Canal in the month of February, 1994, it could not be expected that police would be able to recover it, when Bishan Singh lodged the report about a month later. Thus just a few discrepancies in the statement of Bishan Singh, cannot falsify the entire prosecution case.
Before the trial court, the defence did not take up any other plea except that they had been falsely implicated. However, no reason was given as to what interest PW1 Bishan Singh had, to falsely implicate the accused. Neither any old enmity nor any dispute was pleaded to show that Bishan Singh had an interest to falsely implicate the accused. Even in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, only thing uttered by the accused, was that they were innocent and were being falsely implicated.
We are not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused. We thus hold that death of Baggu Singh was Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 9 homicidal in nature.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have deemed it appropriate to examine the question of intention of the accused to commit murder of Baggu Singh. For this purpose, we have carefully examined the evidence of Bishan Singh, the star witness of the prosecution, on the basis of which we have arrived at a conclusion that Baggu Singh died as a result of blows inflicted on him by the accused. The relevant part of statement of Bishan Singh PW1 is extracted below:-
"On the next day, we all four i.e. myself, Baggu Singh deceased, Mal Singh and Parampal Singh started from village Sainpal to our village. On the way village Dabwali falls, where there was a liquor vend. Mal Singh accused purchased one bottle of liquor from that liquor vend and Mal Singh, Parampal Singh and Baggu Singh took liquor there. I did not participate because I am Radhaswami. After taking liquor, they started the peter Rehra for their village. When we had covered about 3 miles distance from Dabwala, the Rehra went out of order due to mechanical. From there Baggu and Mal Singh went to Dabwali for bringing some mechanic. They brought the mechanic to repair the rehra. They also brought one bottle of liquor with them. The mechanic repaired the Rehra. There again Baggu Singh, Mal Singh and Parampal Singh took liquor and then thereafter Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 10 they started the Rehra to reach our village. Mal Singh was the driver of the Rehra. Baggu Singh asked Mal Singh that he would drive the rehra but Mal Singh refused to allow him to drive the rehra. Baggu Singh insisted being owner of the rehra that he would drive. At that time, it was about 7/7.30 PM. They both entered into exchange of hot words. Mal Singh thereupon stopped the rehra there. Both Mal Singh and Parampal Singh dragged Baggu from the rehra on the ground and started giving kick blows to Baggu. Parampal Singh accused put his leg on the neck of Baggu. Due to that Baggu could not speak. I asked Mal Singh and Parampal Singh as why they were giving beatings to Baggu. Baggu died at the spot."
A perusal of the above statement shows that under the influence of liquor, hot words were exchanged between Baggu Singh, Mal Singh and Parampal Singh, whereafter both Mal Singh and Parampal Singh dragged Baggu Singh from the Rehra and gave him kick blows. Parampal Singh even put his leg on the neck of Baggu Singh due to which he could not speak. As a result of the blows, Baggu Singh died, whereafter his body was disposed of by the accused by throwing the same in the canal.
This witness Bishan Singh was cross-examined at length. However, his testimony could not be dislodged by the defence. Except Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 11 minor discrepancies, no substantial dent could be made in the evidence of this eye-witness.
A perusal of the statement of PW1, however, gives neither any indication of any intention on part of the accused to murder Baggu Singh nor any premeditation or preplanning to kill Baggu Singh. The entire episode appears to be a result of a drunken brawl. In the absence of any intention on the part of the accused to kill Baggu Singh, it is difficult for this court to hold him guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC. However, there is no doubt that the accused would definitely have the knowledge that dragging Baggu Singh from the Rehra, giving him kick blows and putting pressure on his neck, would result in his death in ordinary course. Thus, we are of the view that the accused-appellant is guilty of having committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It being a case of knowledge and not intention, even if the testimony of the eye-witness Bishan Singh is believed in toto, the offence would fall in the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC. Thus, we set-aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and convict him for offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that sentence of seven years would be adequate in the present case. However, fine is maintained at Rs.1000/- as imposed by the court below. In default of payment thereof he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.
Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 12
There can also be no doubt about the fact that after Baggu Singh died, the accused disposed of his body by throwing the same in the canal. Thus conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC is also upheld. Sufficient evidence has also come on record to show that the accused intimidated the eye-witness PW1 by taking him to Bija Nagar and not allowing him to make statement to the police. There is evidence to show that Bishan Singh was threatened that in case he narrated the occurrence to anybody, he would also be killed and his dead-body would be thrown in the canal in the same manner as they had done with Baggu Singh. Thus, conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC is upheld.
It is pertinent to mention here that the trial court has convicted both the accused i.e. Parampal Singh appellant and Mal Singh co-accused under Sections 302, 201 & 506 IPC. However, the present appeal has been preferred only by Parampal Singh. It appears that Mal Singh did not prefer any appeal against his conviction and sentence by the trial court. Faced with this situation that both the accused are similarly placed, one of them having not preferred an appeal, a question arises whether he should be given the same benefit as to the other accused who is in appeal before us.
We are of the considered view that having held that the accused Parampal Singh is guilty of offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not of murder, the same benefit needs to be extended to the co-accused Mal Singh who has not filed any appeal against the impugned Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 13 judgment.
We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Raja Ram v. State of M.P., (1994) 2 S.C.C. 568 wherein it was held that where case of non-appealing accused is identical to the case of the appellant before the court, benefit of altered conviction and sentence should also be made available to the non-appealing accused. Another judgment rendered as Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 S.C.C. 708 is on the similar lines.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the non-appealing accused deserves to be granted the same benefit as granted to the appellant before us and his conviction and sentence also deserves to be altered accordingly. Therefore, we hold that the accused Mal Singh is not guilty of murder but of offence under Section 304 Part- II IPC as well as of offences under Sections 506 and 201 IPC. His sentence would be in the same terms as that awarded to appellant Parampal Singh.
The appeal is thus partly allowed and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot is set-aside to the extent indicated above.
In view of the fact that we have altered the sentence of the non-appealing accused Mal Singh, a direction is hereby issued to the respondent State to intimate the jail authorities in this regard and a copy Crl. Appeal No.243-DB of 2001 14 of the judgment be made available to accused Mal Singh within a week of receipt of its certified copy by the respondent State.
(UMA NATH SINGH) (RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
October 03, 2008
'rajpal'