Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niranjan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003
Date of decision:16.2.2010
Niranjan Singh
... Appellant
versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae, for the appellant.
Ms.Gurveen H.Singh, Addl.AG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Appellant Niranjan Singh son of Labh Singh was sent for trial by the SHO, Police Station Dhuri, on the allegation that on 24.2.2002 at about 7.30 PM in the revenue estate of Village Kaul Serri, Darshan Singh was murdered by him. Vide judgment dated 10.6.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year under Section 302 IPC.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.2.2002, SHO, Police Station Dhuri, received ruqa from Civil Hospital, Dhuri, regarding receipt of dead body of Darshan Singh in Civil Hospital, Dhuri. Then Inspector Joginder Singh along with police party had gone to Civil Hospital, Dhuri, where dead body of Darshan Singh was lying. Parkash Singh, brother Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 2 of the deceased was present in the hospital, who reported to the police that he is the resident of Village Kaul Serri and is a labourer. His brother was serving as Gangman in Railway Department and was active member of BSP. He was sitting on the chabutra of bus stand of Village Kaul Serri. There is workshop of Kulwant Singh Mistri, near the bus stand. Electric light was on outside the workshop. At about 7.30 PM, Darshan Singh was sighted while coming from the side of railway crossing. He was in front of workshop of Kulwant Singh. Niranjan Singh @ Nanja was already standing in front of the workshop of Kulwant Singh. Niranjan Singh raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for not casting votes in favour of his party. Niranjan Singh took out small kirpan and gave blow on the left side of the chest of Darshan Singh. On receipt of kirpan blow, Darshan Singh fell down. In the meantime, Dhani Ram came to the spot. They had raised raulla and tried to save Darshan Singh but accused had fled away from the spot with small kirpan. Darshan Singh was shifted to Civil Hospital, Dhuri, where he was declared dead. Motive to cause injury was that Niranjan Singh told Darshan Singh to vote in favour of his party, but Darshan Singh did not agree. Dhani Ram was deputed to guard the dead body. Statement was read over and explained to Parkash Singh, who had signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement at 10.00 PM, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded.
Inspector Joginder Singh prepared inquest report and got the postmortem examination conducted. After that, he had gone to the spot. After inspecting the spot, rough site plan was prepared. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and the same was made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession. Clothes worn by the deceased, Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 3 which were taken into possession by the doctor at the time of postmortem examination, were produced before Inspector Joginder Singh by HC Mohinderjit Singh. Same were taken into police possession.
On 28.2.2002, accused was arrested along with weapon. Sketch of the weapon (Ex.PN) was prepared. Kirpan was sealed by the Investigating Officer and sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Weapon recovered from the accused and the clothes of the deceased were sent to the FSL. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused was charged under Section 302 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Ramesh Sharma. He stated that on 25.2.2002 at 10.30 AM, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Darshan Singh, brought by Harjinder Singh. Dead body was identified by Kuldeep Singh. Following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:-
"1. An incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of chest in the 3rd intercostal space, just lateral to mid clavicle line. On further dissection, muscles cut and wound was towards medial direction and piercing the heart at right ventricle level. Clotted blood was present in the cavity and filling the whole mediastinal region.
2. An abrasion mark 2 cm x 2 cm on the lateral side of right knee joint blue black in colour."
In his opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury on the chest which was sufficient to cause death in the Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 4 ordinary course of nature. Injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature.
PW2 Parkash Singh is the brother of deceased. He had witnessed the occurrence and supported the prosecution story by saying that in his presence, accused had given kirpan blow to his brother Darshan Singh.
PW3 Dhani Ram is the father of deceased. He had also witnessed the occurrence and supported the version of Parkash Singh, complainant.
PW4 Constable Baldev Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PF). PW5 HC Mohinderjit Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PG). PW6 Inspector Joginder Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW7 Constable Sukhdeep Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PR). PW8 HC Jasbir Singh stated that on 28.2.2002, he was with the party headed by Inspector Joginder Singh. Accused was arrested in this case. Kirpan was got recovered from the accused. Sketch of kirpan was prepared and the same was made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by him.
PW9 HC Narinder Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PS). After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused is that he is innocent. No occurrence had taken place. Darshan Singh was the supporter of his opposite party. He was falsely implicated due to party faction because he did not cast vote in favour of Ghuli, who was candidate for the seat of MLA. He was taken to hospital and his blood sample was taken. Blood was rubbed on kirpan.
Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 5
Opportunity was given to lead evidence but no defence evidence was led.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on file, trial Court held that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated aforesaid.
We have heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and the State counsel, and also gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that presence of eye witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence is doubtful. Occurrence was in front of workshop of Kulwant Singh, but he was not examined. No employee of Railway Department was examined to state that on the date of occurrence, Darshan Singh had attended his office and after office hours, he was returning to his house. House of the complainant party was at some distance from the place of occurrence. If the eye witnesses were present at the spot, then they should have made an effort to catch hold the appellant to save Darshan Singh. Parkash Singh is the real brother, whereas Dhani Ram is the father of the deceased. Brother and father were not expected to allow the appellant to cause injuries by remaining silent without any effort to save Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh was shifted to the hospital by the eye witnesses but they did not produce their blood stained clothes before the police. Parkash Singh admitted that at the time of occurrence, there was darkness. There was no street light in the village. House of the appellant is at a distance of 6 kms from the place of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, counting process was going on. In fact, occurrence was in the vicinity of the village. Before present occurrence, there was no dispute Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 6 amongst the parties. Appellant was the supporter of Akali Dal, whereas deceased was the supporter of BSP. As per FIR, motive to cause injuries was not to support the party of the appellant, but in the Court, Parkash Singh stated that there was a money dispute amongst the deceased and the appellant. Earlier 2-3 times, there was a scuffle but no report to any authority. So presence of eye witnesses and evidence qua motive is doubtful. Appellant is a Nihang and he used to carry ceremonial weapon, i.e., small kirpan. Only one blow was given. Blow was not repeated. Second injury noted by the doctor was abrasion on the right knee joint and abrasion is possible while shifting the injured to the hospital in a vehicle. As per doctor, injury No.2 was simple in nature and is possible by fall against hard surface. Due to party faction, there was a sudden fight because deceased did not support the party of the appellant. In case the Court is of the opinion that injuries were caused, then the appellant is liable for punishment under Section 304 Part-I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
Learned State counsel argued that minor improvements/ contradictions in the statements of PWs were natural with the passage of time. Occurrence has taken place on 24.2.2002, whereas witnesses have appeared in the Court on 25.9.2002. Appearance of minor improvements/ contradictions show that statements of the witnesses are natural because no human being can recollect all facts which had happened much earlier. Blow was given in the chest due to previous enmity, therefore, intention was to murder.
First submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that presence of complainant and Dhani Ram at the time of occurrence is doubtful. But evidence on the file shows that presence of Parkash Singh Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 7 and his father Dhani Ram at the time of occurrence is natural because occurrence had taken place at about 7.30 PM on 24.2.2002 in front of the workshop of Kulwant Singh. House of the appellant is at a distance of 6 karams from the place of occurrence, whereas house of the complainant party is at a distance of 10-15 karams. After committing the crime, appellant had fled away from the spot, then Darshan Singh was shifted to the hospital. Admission of Darshan Singh in the hospital was at 8.20 PM, when he was declared dead. Parkash Singh, complainant, stated that at the time of occurrence, he was near the bus stand of Village Kaul Serri. Bus Stand Kaul Serri is at a distance of 7-8 karams from the place of occurrence. Darshan Singh was the supporter of BSP whereas appellant being the supporter of Akali Dal was requesting Darshan Singh to support his party. Assembly election was few days earlier to the present occurrence. On the date of occurrence, counting of votes was going on. Suggestion was given to Parkash Singh that occurrence had taken place in the vicinity of village whereas counting process was going on at Dhuri, but no respectable person was produced in defence to state that the occurrence was near the place where counting process was going on. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and as per report of the laboratory, human blood was noticed. So, there was no idea to shift the place of occurrence and name the appellant in the FIR when house of the appellant is at a distance of 6 karams. When occurrence was near the house of the complainant party, then presence of Parkash Singh and his father at the time of occurrence is natural.
Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that no motive to commit the crime, but motive is a double edged weapon. Appellant was the supporter of Akali Dal. Son of Surjit Singh Barnala, Ex- Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 8 Chief Minister, was the candidate from the side of Akali Dal, whereas Darshan Singh was the supporter of BSP. Appellant requested the deceased to support his party, but he was not agreeing. In Court, Parkash Singh stated that there was money dispute amongst the parties, but no writing. Secondly, 2-3 times earlier, there was a scuffle but no report to any authority. So, there was no reason to commit the crime when appellant was not the candidate. On the other hand, complainant party had no idea to name the appellant, whose residence is at a distance of 6 karams from the place of occurrence. If before present occurrence, appellant had no dispute with the deceased, then there was no idea to leave the real culprit and name the appellant. When there is a direct evidence, then motive loses significance because sometime without motive, heinous crime is committed. Motive is always in the heart of the accused. Injury was on the chest. Injury cannot be self suffered or self inflicted. By self suffering or self inflicting injury, there was no idea to name the appellant. As discussed earlier, if occurrence is in the vicinity of the village, then some respectable person could be produced in defence to state that occurrence was near the place where counting process was going on. Darshan Singh had injuries at the hands of some body else and not the appellant. So, if the prosecution evidence is doubtful regarding motive, then on this short ground, prosecution story is not to be ignored.
Last submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that before the present occurrence, there was no dispute amongst the parties, except this fact that deceased was the supporter of BSP and appellant was the supporter of Akali Dal. House of the appellant is at a distance of 6 karams from the place of occurrence. Counting was going on, on the date of Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 9 occurrence. There seems to be a sudden fight and blow was not repeated. Appellant being Nihang used to carry small kirpan as ceremonial symbol. So, at the most, appellant can be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Submission of learned counsel seems to be reasonable one. Appellant was not contesting the Assembly election, but he was the supporter of Akali Dal. Complainant party was the supporter of BSP. Deceased was employee in the Railway Department and was returning from his office. On account of counting of votes, appellant came to Dhuri from his village situated at a distance of 6 kms. Appellant had no intention or motive to murder. When the deceased came in front of the appellant near the workshop of Kulwant Singh, then there was some altercation amongst them, as to why Darshan Singh (deceased) did not support the Akali Dal. Suddenly the appellant took out small kirpan carried by him being Nihang and gave blow. Blow was not repeated. Parkash Singh admitted in cross- examination that earlier to the present occurrence, there was no dispute amongst the appellant and Darshan Singh (deceased), except the dispute regarding payment of Rs.200/- Rs.400/- by the appellant. Regarding payment, no document on the file. At the spur of moment, there was a sudden fight. If appellant had the intention to murder, then he should have repeated the blow. Two injuries were noted on the person of the deceased, but Injury No.2 was an abrasion on lateral side of right knee joint. This injury was possible by fall. Injury No.1 is fatal, but when there was no motive or intention and the crime was not as per planning, then we are of the opinion that the appellant is liable for punishment under Section 304 Part-I IPC, because case of the appellant falls under Exception 4 of Section 304 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Crl.Appeal No.782-DB of 2003 10 appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal is partly allowed. Offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is converted into offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Appellant is directed to undergo RI for ten years under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Fine is maintained. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for six months.
( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) 16.2.2010 JUDGE pk