Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 17 November, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002
.....
Date of decision:17.11.2012
Raghbir Singh and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Singh,
Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellants-Raghbir Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Swaran Singh, Nand Singh, Partap Singh, Devender Singh and Pritam Singh against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2002/1.5.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby they have been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short) and appellant- Pritam Singh has also been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. All the remaining six accused- appellants, namely, Swaran Singh, Nand Singh, Raghbir Singh, Partap Singh, Devender Singh and Sukhdev Singh have also been held guilty and Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [2] convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the seven appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Appellant-Pritam Singh has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `8,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Remaining six appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `4,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the seven appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of `2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. A sum of `30,000/- has been ordered to be given as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Karnail Singh out of the fine so realized as per provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Jasbir Singh, complainant, who is son of deceased Karnail Singh. He mainly stated that he was cultivating land measuring three acres belonging to his cousin Gurbachan Singh which was self-cultivated by her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Harbhajan Kaur as Gurbachan Singh had gone to America. He and his sister's son Jaswant Singh was rendering help to his Bhabhi in cultivating Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [3] the land. After harvesting cotton crop, they were preparing the fields for sowing wheat crop. The complainant and Jaswant Singh had been cultivating (Bahan) this land since the morning while his Bhabhi Harbhajan Kaur was busy in lifting the cotton sticks. At about 3.30 p.m. on 27.10.1999, a number of persons boarding tractor reached from the side of Sirsa major (canal) and after parking the tractor on the canal bank came towards them. Pritam Singh was holding a gun in his hand. Swaran Singh was holding a sword. Nand Singh was holding a gun. Raghbir Singh was holding a gun. Devender Sing was holding a sword in his hand. Sukhdev Singh was armed with `Barchha. Partap Singh was holding a gun. On reaching the accused raised `Lalkara' that they may be taught a lesson for cultivating the land. Upon this Nand Singh fired a gun shot from his gun while aiming at him. The complainant took shelter of the tractor. In the meanwhile, Raghbir Singh fired a gun shot aiming at them but they escaped. Thereafter, Pritam Singh fired a gun shot from his .315 bore gun while aiming at them. Complainant's father Karnail Singh was coming to them from the village side while taking tea for them via road which is adjacent to their fields. That gun shot hit his father Karnail Singh, who fell down on the `Katcha' path near the road. Upon which they raised alarm. Then the assailants fled away towards the canal along with their respective weapons while Pritam Singh continued firing from his gun while aiming towards them. Karnail Singh received bullet injury on the left side of his neck. He and Jaswant Singh removed injured to General Hospital, Fatehabad for treatment in the tractor where the doctor declared him dead. The motive behind the occurrence was that Gurbachan Singh had been cultivating the Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [4] land for the last 30 years while Kabul Singh had procured a fictitious decree in his favour with respect to the land and the complainant's sister-in-law Harbhajan Kaur had preferred an appeal in the High Court and had obtained an order of status quo. It is also stated by the complainant that while going away from the spot the offenders had left away their tractor on the canal bank. This statement of the complainant was recorded by Inspector Siri Bhagwan, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Fatehabad on 27.10.1999 at about 7.00 p.m. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered. After recording the FIR, the Investigating Officer inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.PF/1. Then he went to the spot. It was night time so the spot could not be inspected. He inspected the spot on the next day. He recovered dolli of steel, two glasses which were taken into Police possession. Blood stained earth was also taken from the spot. Tractor No.HR-22-4992 Escort was also taken into possession. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 29.10.1999, accused Raghbir Singh, Swaran Singh and Sukhdev Singh were arrested. Raghbir Singh accused on interrogation got recovered licensed gun in pursuance of his disclosure statement which was taken into Police possession. Accused Swaran Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered a sword. Accused Sukhdev Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered a `Barchha'. On 30.10.1999, accused Nand Singh and Devender Singh were arrested. Accused Nand Singh got recovered a licensed gun in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Devender Singh got recovered a sword in pursuance of his disclosure statement. On 11.11.1999, accused Partap Singh was arrested by DSP Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [5] Rajesh Duggal, who was SHO, Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad at the relevant time and to whom the investigation of this case was transferred. Partap Singh made two disclosure statements, but no recovery of gun was effected. On 2.1.2000, accused Pritam Singh was arrested from the Court premises of Fatehabad by Ishar Singh, SI. After necessary investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charges against the accused-appellants framed charges for the offences as mentioned above. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 ASI Raj Singh, who mainly deposed regarding scribing of the FIR after receiving the `Ruqa'. PW-2 Constable Sanjay Kumar mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report to Illaqa Magistrate at 8.40 p.m. on 27.10.1999. PW-3 Dharmender, Patwari deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PB. PW-4 Head Constable Jaswant Singh and PW-5 ASI Sita Ram are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Exs.PC and PD respectively. PW-6 Jasbir Singh is the complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-7 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Medical Officer deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer in General Hospital, Fatehabad. On that day, Jasbir Singh brought dead body of his father Karnail Singh at 4.30 p.m. in the hospital. He examined Karnail Singh and declared him as dead. He sent `Ruqa' Ex.PE to SHO, Sadar, Fatehabad at 4.40 p.m. PW-8 Dr. D.L. Bansal mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karnail Singh on 28.10.1999 at 10.00 a.m. and found Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [6] the following injuries:-
"1. Lacerated oval shape wound with inverted margins of the size of 2 cm x 1½ cm on the left side of the neck, 2 cm above the clavicle and 7 cm lateral to mid line with blood clots and bleeding. On probating the broabe was going posteriorly towards the scapula left side on midial side border of culpa. Holes were present in the shirt and banian."
As per his opinion, the cause of death in this case was haemorrhage and shock due to fire arm injury which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-9 Constable Naresh Kumar is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PG. PW-10 Banwari Lal, UGC mainly deposed regarding got conducting post-mortem examination. PW-11 Jaswant Singh is the eye witness. He deposed as per prosecution version. PW-12 Singara Singh, Inspector/SHO mainly deposed regarding preparing report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and taking into possession scaled site plan etc. from Patwari. PW-13 SI Ishar Singh, In-charge, Police Post mainly deposed regarding arresting the accused Pritam Singh from the Court premises of Fatehabad, when he was posted in Police Station, Sadar, Fatehabad. PW-14 Inspector Siri Bhagwan is the Investigating Officer who mainly deposed regarding the investigation of the case. PW-15 Rajesh Duggal, DSP, deposed regarding partly investigation in this case, who recorded the statement of SI Babu Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor closed prosecution evidence after tendering FSL reports Ex.PR and PR/1.
Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [7] At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. All the accused deposed that Kabal Singh is the owner of the land measuring 3/3½ acres and he had been cultivating that land throughout. Harbhajan Kaur and her husband Gurbachan Singh never cultivated that land. The cotton crop was sown in the land by Kabal Singh being the owner of that land. Swaran Singh son of Jagir Singh their co- accused is the relative of Kabal Singh and he had appointed him as his general attorney. On 27.10.1999, he was ploughing the land and Harbhajan Kaur wife of Kabal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh son of Pritam Singh, their co-accused were also present in the field for helping him in sowing the land for preparing it for sowing wheat crop. Karnail Singh father of Jasbir Singh PW came to that field at about 10.00 a.m. and prevented Swaran Singh for ploughing the field. It resulted an altercation between Karnail Singh and Swaran Singh. Niranjan Singh, elder brother of Karnail Singh came there with his licensed .315 bore gun and he fired a shot aiming at Swaran Singh but accidentally that shot hit Karnail Singh. Jasbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and Harbhajan Kaur PWs were not present at the spot. On receiving the information about this occurrence Jasbir Singh PW came to the spot from the village and after arranging a jeep again came there and then took Karnail Singh to the hospital. Jasbir Singh got a false case registered against them after deliberation and consultation. They are innocent.
From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, the learned senior counsel for the Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [8] appellants firstly contended that false case has been planted upon the accused-appellants and the witnesses have motive to falsely depose against them. It is also stated that the accused party is in possession of the property in dispute. The witnesses were not present on the spot. It is also argued that no gun was recovered from accused-appellant Pritam Singh. It is also argued that there is only one fire arm injury attributed to Pritam Singh as per prosecution version and no other injuries attributed to any of the appellant. Therefore, so many family members have been impleaded in the present case to put pressure upon them and to have benefit in civil litigation.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State argued that the prosecution has duly proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. He argued that there is nothing on the record to show that PWs Jasbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and Harbhajan Kaur were not present on the spot. PW-6 Jasbir Singh- complainant and eye witness and PW-11 Jaswant Singh have duly supported and corroborated the prosecution version. There are no material contradictions or improvements in their statements. The oral statements of the PWs are supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. The accused had got recovered weapons of offence. Appellant-Pritam Singh was produced by the Army authorities on 2.1.2000 as he served in the Army, therefore, gun could not be got recovered from him. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that there is no unnecessary delay in the present case. There is also motive to cause the occurrence. All the accused have actively participated in the commission of the offence, therefore, the appeal having no merit should be dismissed.
Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [9] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the evidence on record, we find that there is nothing on the record to show that Jasbir Singh, Jaswant Singh and Harbhajan Kaur were not present on the spot. PW-6 Jasbir Singh and PW-11 Jaswant Singh have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. There are no material contradictions in their statements nor there are material improvements in their version. Their oral statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. Further, PW-8 Dr. D.L. Bansal has recovered bullet Ex.P.6 from the body of Karnail Singh which was sent to the FSL. As per FSL report, the empty recovered from the spot and the projectile were fired from .315 bore gun. The other two licensed rifles recovered from Raghbir Singh and Nand Singh were also sent to FSL and these were found in working condition. Even the hole in the `Banian' of the deceased was found to have been caused by the projectile of the cartridge fired which is Ex.P.6. There is motive for causing the occurrence.
As regards the civil litigation, no argument was raised and it is admitted that the matter is pending before the High Court and status quo order has already been passed. The accused had not examined any witness to prove their defence that they were in possession and cultivating the land and brother of deceased Karnail Singh, namely, Niranjan Singh came there and fired on Swaran Singh etc. There is no evidence on the record to support and corroborate the defence version except the mere suggestion to PWs. The eye witnesses have consistently deposed on oath in the Court and there is nothing in their cross-examination which may make their statements Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [10] unreliable. As already discussed, there is nothing on the record to show that they were not present at the spot. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that PW-6 Jasbir Singh and PW-11 Jaswant Singh had seen the occurrence and they are reliable, truthful and trustworthy witnesses and their statements can be safely relied upon. Further their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. Further their version that Karnail Singh had come on the spot and was bringing tea for them also supported and corroborated from the fact that a `dolli' and two glasses had been recovered from the spot. The occurrence is stated to be at about 3.30 p.m. and the FIR was registered at 7.50 p.m. As civil litigation is pending between the parties and dispute is regarding possession of the land, therefore, there is also motive for the accused-appellants to cause the occurrence. As the relations between the complainant and the accused are inimical due to civil litigation and there is also delay in recording the FIR of about four hours, therefore, we have perused the evidence on record more cautiously and carefully. Accused-appellant Sukhdev Singh was stated to be armed with a `Barchha', accused-appellant Swaran Singh was stated to be armed with a sword, accused-appellant Devender Singh was also stated to be armed with a sword and accused-appellant Partap Singh was also stated to be armed with a gun and further attributed that while going from the spot he fired that is he fired after the occurrence took place. All these four appellants have not attributed any injury nor any active participation in the commission of the offence has been shown. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists whether they were actually present on the spot. In view of the delay of about four hours, there is every possibility regarding their implication in Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [11] the present case. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that they had not actively participated in the commission of the offence, no injuries have been attributed to them and there being already inimical relations between the complainant and the accused party, we find that a reasonable doubt exits regarding their involvement in the present case. Therefore, giving benefit of doubt, we hold appellants-Sukhdev Singh, Swaran Singh, Partap Singh and Devender Singh as not guilty of the charges framed against them and the appeal qua them is allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence against them are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
As per evidence on record, Raghbir Singh and Nand Singh fired towards complainant-Jasbir Singh and Jaswant Singh and they rescued themselves. Therefore, accused-appellant No.1 Raghbir Singh and appellant No.4-Nand Singh had committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. Again appellant No.7-Pritam Singh fired from .315 bore gun which hit Karnail Singh (deceased). Therefore, Pritam Singh had committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant No.7-Pritam Singh, appellant No.1-Raghbir Singh and appellant no.4-Nand Singh. Accused-appellants Raghbir Singh and Nand Singh are convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Pritam Singh under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Pritam Singh is further convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Raghbir Singh and Nand Singh for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. All the appellants are acquitted for the offence under Section 148 Cr. Appeal No.D-390-DB of 2002 [12] IPC.
Therefore, with the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
November 17, 2012.
*hsp*