Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 31 October, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.-D-592-DB of 2008
.....
Date of decision:31.10.2012
Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Appellant-Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Kartar Singh, Member Panchayat of Village Heir made a statement before SI/SHO Harish Behl, Police Station Airport, Amritsar on 22.4.2007 at 7.15 a.m. stating that Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [2] Gurpreet Singh son of Harjinder Singh along with his maternal grand-father Ajit Singh came to his house at about 5.00 a.m. and stated that his father Harjinder Singh who used to beat the whole family under the influence of liquor came to the house at 11/12.00 p.m. and started beating his mother Darshan Kaur and sister Rupinder Kaur. At that time blood was high on his head and on his repeated requests he did not pay heed and stepped forward to take his licensed weapon. Gurpreet Singh further stated to him that he grappled with his father and gave him a push due to which his father fell down in the courtyard and in a fit of rage, he gave a `Kandhala' blow lying nearby on his head and blood started oozing out from his head and thereafter he died. Gurpreet Singh also stated to him that he had done so due to daily routine maltreatment of his father. Kartar Singh-complainant further stated that he along with Gurpreet Singh and Ajit Singh went to Village Sikander where dead body of Harjinder Singh was lying smeared with blood in the courtyard.
After recording the statement, SI/SHO Harish Behl along with other police officials and the complainant reached at the spot. He prepared inquest proceedings Ex.PG/2. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. He took into possession blood stained earth from the spot. He also prepared rough site plan. Accused Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi was produced before him by Mukhwinder Singh, Sarpanch. He was arrested. The accused was interrogated. During interrogation he made disclosure statement regarding concealing of iron `Kandhala' in the fields of wheat behind his house and then in pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered `Kandhala' which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [3] Ex.PM. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was presented against the appellant in the Court.
After presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charges against the accused for the offence as stated above framed charge to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Kartar Singh-complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version but did not support the prosecution version partly regarding the fact that accused disclosed that he gave push to his father who fell down in the courtyard and the accused picked up an iron `Kandhala' and hit on the head of his father and blood oozed from his injuries and he died. PW-1, however, stated in examination-in-chief that accused disclosed to him that he had killed his father. The witness was got declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined and confronted with his statement Ex.PA. The witness admitted his signatures on Ex.PA and also admitted the material facts stated in the statement. PW-2 Gurvail Singh simply identified the dead body of Harjinder Singh. PW-3 Rishi Ram, Draftsman mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan. PW-4 ASI Gurmeet Singh, PW-5 HC Harvinder Singh and PW-6 HC Pishora Singh are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Exs.PD, PE and PF respectively. PW-7 Ajit Singh is the maternal grandfather of the accused. He did not support the prosecution version and was got declared hostile. Even in the cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor nothing came out. PW-8 Dr. Kirpal Singh mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [4] the dead body of Harjinder Singh and found the following injuries:-
"Incised wound 15.2 x 1.8 cms on right parietal region extending towards the right side of occipital region. The underlying muscles were cut. Clotted blood was present, the brain and its meninges were coming out.
2. 6 x 2.1 cms incised wound vertically present on the voult of skull, the underlying muscles were cut, clotted blood was present.
3. Dark brownish black bruise on left side of upper and lower eye lid.
4. Lacerated wound 2.1 x 2 cms on the left lateral side of face, 1.4 cms lateral to eye brow. Clotted blood was present.
5. Lacerated wound 2 x 2 cms on left side of face 2.1 cms above the middle of eye brow. Clotted blood was present." The doctor also gave the opinion regarding the cause of death was laceration of brain (vital organ) which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. The doctor also stated that viscera was sent for alcohol/poison examination to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala and also deposed regarding the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PG/3, according to which Ethyl Alcohol detected. Blood Alcohol concentration estimated to be 115.0 mg. per 100 ml. As per FSL report `Kandhala' got recovered from the accused was allegedly stained with blood. PW-9 HC Sarwan Singh is the Photographer, who mainly deposed regarding photographs Exs.P.1 to P.10 and the negatives Exs.P.11 to P.20. PW-10 SI Harish Behl is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding the investigation of the Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [5] case. PW-11 Constable Bagh Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PT. The Public Prosecutor then closed the prosecution evidence.
At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused denied the correctness of the evidence and stated that he is innocent. He had been falsely implicated in this case.
From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is innocent. He also argued that there is no cogent evidence on the record to prove the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he argued that the appellant should be acquitted accordingly. Learned counsel further argued that PW-7 Ajit Singh has not supported the prosecution version and PW-1 Kartar Singh has also supported the prosecution version partly. Therefore, he argued that the appeal should be accepted. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the case of the prosecution at the most falls under Section 304, Part-I IPC as the occurrence took place at sudden and grave provocation. The deceased was in drunkard condition and was giving beating to the mother and sister of the appellant and the appellant being young in age of about 18 years tried to save them specially when the deceased tried to bring his rifle.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab argued that case of the prosecution has been duly proved from the Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [6] extra-judicial confession made by the appellant which is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and further by the recovery of `Kandhala' by accused in pursuance of disclosure statement made by him. Further FSL report supports and corroborates the prosecution version as `Kandhala' was stained with human blood. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that even the report of Chemical Examiner supports and corroborates the averments made in the extra-judicial confession that the deceased was in drunkard condition. She further argued that PW-1 Kartar Singh is the reliable and truthful witness and his testimony can be relied upon. She also argued that the case falls under Section 302 IPC as the injuries were on the vital parts of the body. She argued that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
We find that PW-1 Kartar Singh has supported the material facts regarding extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to him. From the perusal of his statement and cross-examination, we find that he is a reliable witness. He clearly admitted that he is not knowing Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi-appellant previously but he was knowing his maternal uncle Ajit Singh who is belonging to his village. The village of PW-1 Kartar Singh is at a distance of 2/2½ kms. from the place of occurrence. PW-1 has not given the manner of injuries given by the appellant to the deceased. Otherwise, he supported the whole version. The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant is admissible in evidence and can be read against him. There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve the Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [7] statement of PW-1 Kartar Singh. The extra-judicial confession made by Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi to PW-1 Kartar Singh is further supported by the Chemical Examiner report as per which alcohol was found in the viscera and proved the fact that at that time deceased was in drunkard condition. The recovery of `Kandhala' by the appellant as per disclosure statement further supports and corroborates the extra judicial confession. The FSL report that the `Kandhala' was stained with human blood further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of Harjinder Singh as per medical report were on the head and the other injuries on the face. There is nothing on the record that these injuries cannot be caused with `Kandhala' nor there is any cross-examination of the doctor on this point. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is innocent cannot be believed. There is no enmity or motive of PW-1 Kartar Singh to depose falsely against the appellant. Further mother and sister of the appellant has also not appeared in the defence to support the defence version of the appellant that he is innocent. Ajit Singh PW-7 is the maternal grand-father of the appellant, therefore, for that reason it looks that he has not supported the prosecution version but from the record we find that there is sufficient evidence on the record against the accused which proves that the accused had caused the death of Harjinder Singh by giving injuries to him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
As regards the contention that the case falls under Section 304, Part-I IPC, we find merit. There was no pre-planing to commit the murder. The occurrence took place on the sudden and grave provocation as Cr. Appeal No.D-592-DB of 2008 [8] deceased, who was father of the appellant, was giving beating to the mother and sister of the appellant and was in drunkard condition and to save them the appellant grappled with him specially when the deceased stepped forward to bring his licensed rifle. In those circumstances, the appellant picked up `Kandhala' lying there and gave injuries. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case we find that the case of the prosecution falls under Section 304, Part-I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
Therefore, from the above discussion, we hold Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi guilty of the charge under Section 304, Part-I IPC and he is convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part-I IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC and his sentence is modified and is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304, Part I IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC.
With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
October 31, 2012.
*hsp*