Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo And Others vs State Of Punjab on 4 May, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N.Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : May 04, 2011
Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo, Harjinder Singh @ Hira, Binder Singh @ Kaka, all sons of Gurdial Singh, Gurdial Singh son of Tara Singh and Mohinder Singh son of Teja Singh are in appeal against the judgment dated 04.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appellant Gurdial Singh was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 whereas appellants Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo, Harjinder Singh @ Hira, Binder Singh @ Kaka and Mohinder Singh were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 & 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as mentioned in the order of sentence.
The prosecution case was set in motion consequent to the information received by Inspector Gurbhinder Singh, SHO Police Station Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 2 Sadar, Taran Tarn through Dr. Brij Mohan, Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran on 12.12.1997. On receipt of such information, Inspector Gurbhinder Singh along with other police officials went to the Civil Hospital and after obtaining the opinion of the Doctor in respect of fitness of Puran Singh @ Bhola vide endorsement Ex.PN/1, recorded his statement.
In his statement (Ex.PO) made at about 12.30 pm on 12.12.1997, Puran Singh stated that in the morning at about 9.00 am, he was standing outside his house near the chowk. Ladoo son of Gurdial Singh resident of Naurangabad came in the street from the side of Gurdawara on his scooter and struck against him resulting into minor injuries on his little finger as well as adjoining finger of right hand. He slapped him and upon which Ladoo called him bad names. He again slapped Ladoo 2-3 times. On hearing noise, Jit Singh son of Kartar Singh, Karam Singh son of Ujagar Singh, Laddi son of Daljit Singh and Jagga son of Mukhtiar Singh, all residents of Naurangabad, came in the street and separated them. He further stated that they all were still present in the chowk, when in the meantime, Ladoo, Kaka and Hira, all sons of Gurdial Singh armed with dangs and sotas and Gurdial Singh son of Tara Singh armed with double barrel gun and Mohinder Singh son of Teja Singh armed with dang, raising exhortations came there. On coming, Ladoo son of Gurdial Singh exhorted to catch hold of us and to teach us a lesson for slapping. Then Ladoo, Mohinder and Hira started brick batting towards them. Gurdial Singh fired five straight shots towards them with an intention to kill as a result of which he received injuries on his left arm due to hitting of pellets, whereas Jit Singh son of Kartar Singh, Karam Singh son of Ujagar Singh, Laddi son of Dalbir Singh and Jagga son of Mukhtiar Singh got seriously injured. He further stated that in the meantime his uncle Bir Singh son of Ujagar Singh also came at the spot and witnessed the whole occurrence. On raising alarm Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 3 by him and Bir Singh, all the assailants along with their respective weapons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, after arranging for conveyance, all of them were got removed to the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran by Bir Singh. He and Jagga were admitted by the Doctor, whereas Jit Singh, Karam Singh and Laddi, who were seriously injured, were referred to Amritsar Hospital. On the basis of such statement, ruqa Ex.PO/1 was sent by Inspector Gurbhinder Singh to the Police Station for registration of a case. On receipt of such ruqa, FIR Ex.PO/2 was recorded at 12.45 pm. Thereafter, Inspector Gurbhinder Singh went to the place of occurrence and taken into possession blood stained earth and three empty cartridges of .12 bore vide recovery Memos Ex.PX and PY respectively after converting into sealed parcels. Karam Singh son of Ujagar Singh died on 13.12.1997. Jit Singh, another injured died on 10.01.1998 at Amritsar Hospital. Accused Baljinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Binder Singh were arrested on 21.12.1997, whereas accused Gurdial Singh and Mohinder Singh were arrested on 24.12.1997 and 30.12.1997 respectively. During interrogation, accused Gurdial Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PFF and in pursuance of such statement, double barrel gun was got recovered by him from the disclosed place. After completing the necessary formalities including inquest proceedings, all the accused were made to stand trial.
To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, who medico-legally examined Laddi son of Dalbir Singh and Ajit Singh @ Jit Singh son of Kartar Singh on 16.12.1997 at 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm respectively. He also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Laddi son of Dalbir Singh on 10.01.1998. He also handed over a sealed plastic jar containing metallic pellet to the Police. He also proved the medico-legal reports of Laddi and Ajit Singh as Ex.PA and PB respectively.
Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 4
PW-2 is Dr. Brij Mohan, who has conducted medico-legal examination of Puran Singh and Jagtar Singh on 12.12.1997. He found three punctured wounds on the person of Puran Singh and one punctured wound on the person of Jagtar Singh. He also proved the medico-legal report of Puran Singh and Jagtar Singh as Exs.PH and PK.
PW-6 is Dr. Ashok Chanana, who has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karam Singh on 13.12.1998 at 12.00 noon. He found multiple injuries on his person. A pellet was recovered from the posterior aspect of the plural cavity lying in a clot. In his opinion, cause of death was hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury Nos.1 & 2, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also proved the post-mortem report of Karam Singh as Ex.PQ.
PW-9 is Dr. Tejwant Singh, who has conducted medico-legal x-ray examinations of Jagtar Singh and Puran Singh on 16.12.1997. From the x-ray examination of Jagtar Singh, he found that a rounded radio opaque foreign body shadow in the soft tissue of skull opposite the right parietal region, whereas the x-ray examination of Puran Singh, he found two rounded radio opaque foreign body shadows in the soft tissue of left upper arm on its posterior surface, one opposite lower 1/3rd and the other behind the elbow joint. He also proved the medico-legal x-ray examinations of Jagtar Singh and Puran Singh as Exs.PDD and PEE.
PW-19 is Dr. Rajan Bhatti, who prepared operation notes of Laddi son of Dalbir Singh on 08.01.1998. He deposed that Laddi was admitted in the hospital on 12.12.1997 and was operated upon on 14.12.1997. He also gave certificate with regard to injured Ajit Singh son of Kartar Singh that he has suffered pellet injury on the left eye and needed immediate surgery.
Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 5
PW-20 is Dr. Daljit Singh, who has conducted x-ray examination of patient Ajit Singh son of Kartar Singh. He found that multiple radio opaque foreign bodies were seen in the skull and soft tissues and a radio opaque foreign bodies was seen in the soft tissue near left scapula. He deposed that he sent his report Ex.PRR to Dr. Gurmanjiit Rai.
To complete the chain of circumstances, apart from the medical evidence, the prosecution has also examined Puran Singh, author of FIR, who reiterated his statement Ex.PQ while appearing in the witness-box as PW-3. He stated that Karam Singh, Laddi (both since deceased), Jit Singh and Jagga intervened and got him and Ladoo. He deposed that within 15 minutes, Gurdial Singh armed double barrel gun, Ladoo, Kaka, Hira and Mohinder armed with dangs came at the spot. He deposed that Ladoo, Kaka, Hira and Mohinder Singh started giving brick bat blows, whereas Gurdial Singh fired five shots with his double barrel gun with an intention to kill them. The pellets struck on his left arm, whereas Jit Singh, karam Singh, Laddi and Jagga suffered serious injuries due to pellets, which hit their bodies. He deposed that his statement was recorded at about 12.30 pm in the hospital. From the cross-examination of Puran Singh, it transpires that the houses of each of the five victims are at varying distance ranging from 10 karams to 3 kills. He stated that Jit Singh, Karam Singh, Laddi and Jagga were standing at a distance of 2/3 karams from him, when the scooter struck into him. He deposed that the witnesses and the deceased were already standing, when he came to the spot. He stated that Bir Singh came to the spot after the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that Gurdial Singh used to reads Sehras (good wishes recital at the time of marriage). He stated that when he received injuries, he was talking but looking towards Gurdial Singh, but cannot state that who received the first shot. He stated that as far as he remember, Jit Singh was the first to receive the fire injury. Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 6 He stated that they tried to run away from the spot, but no time was given to them, as Gurdial Singh started firing simultaneously. He stated that when the firing was started, the shopkeepers closed their shops and none from the neighbourhood came out. It was Bir Singh, who arranged three-wheelers and took them to the hospital, which is six kms. from the village. He denied the suggestions that he made taunt to Gurdial Singh that he was carrying a dummy gun and that Gurdial Singh was going to the house of Sarpanch to participate in the marriage ceremony of his son. He denied the suggestion that brick bats were thrown towards Gurdial Singh and that he fearing over- powered by them, fired two shots in quick succession near the house of Mohinder Singh to save himself.
PW-4 Jit Singh also supported the prosecution case. In his cross-examination, he stated that they were standing in the lane, where the scooter struck into Puran Singh. He had not come to the spot after hearing noise. He denied to have stated to the police that when the scooter of Ladoo struck against Puran Singh and Puran Singh gave slaps to Ladoo and then he along with Karam Singh, Laddi, Jagtar Singh @ Jagga and Bir Singh came into lane. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.DA, where it was so recorded, he denied having made such statement. He stated that first shot was fired at him. He stated that they did not give brick bat blows to the accused party. He denied the suggestion that apprehending danger being over powered by them, Gurdial Singh ran away and fired two shots in the right of his private defence.
PW-5 Jagtar Singh has also supported the prosecution case. He is one, who has received injuries from the double barrel rifle shot fired by Gurdial Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Puran Singh is his uncle and that they were standing in the chowk for sufficient time before scooter struck into Puran Singh. He denied that the statement made to the Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 7 police that he along with Karam Singh, Jit Singh and Laddi came to chowk on hearing noise of quarrel between Puran Singh and Ladoo. He stated that Puran Singh has shown his injuries to Doctor in the hospital and the Doctor has bandaged injuries on the fingers of Puran Singh. He denied the suggestion that scooter of Ladoo has not hit Puran Singh. He denied that any case was registered against Sahiba son of Bir Singh at the instance of daughter of Gurdial Singh accused. He admitted that Gurdial Singh used to read Sehra on the occasion of marriages and on the occasion of marriage parties, shots are fired in air to celebrate the marriages. He also admitted that the marriage of son of Jarnail Singh was to take place in the village on the day of occurrence. It was stated that he does not know that Gurdial Singh was to accompany the barat or where the barat of son of Jarnail Singh was to go. He further stated that Gurdial Singh and Puran Singh did not exchange abuses when Gurdial Singh came with gun and they did not try to save themselves when the firing started. He stated that he remain admitted in hospital for 21 days and that police met him at the spot only.
Inspector Gurbhinder Singh, the Investigating Officer was examined as PW-8. Apart from spot inspection, recording of statements of the witnesses, preparation of inquest proceedings and to arrange for the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies, he deposed that he arrested Gurdial Singh on 24.12.1997. During the course of interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PFF) of having concealed one double barrel licensed gun in his house in a room of chaff, which he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of such statement, he led the police part and got recovered the gun. On unloading the gun, two cartridges were recovered. Gurdial Singh also produced valid license for keeping the gun. The gun, cartridges and license were taken into possession. In his cross- examination, he stated that he correctly recorded the statements of Ajit Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 8 Singh and Jagtar Singh Exs. DA and DB respectively. He stated that he does not know about the registration of any case against Sahiba son of Bir Singh at the instance of daughter of Gurdial Singh prior to the presence occurrence. He stated that when Gurdial Singh was arrested, he gave his own version of the occurrence and stated that brick bats were thrown at him by the prosecution witnesses and the deceased. He denied the suggestion that empties and blood stained earth were taken into possession and that the gun of Gurdial Singh was taken into possession from his house.
All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, Gurdial Singh denied the prosecution story. He stated that on the date of occurrence deceased and the injured were standing near Gurdwara. He was having his licensed gun when he was going to attend the marriage ceremony of the son of Sarpanch. He further stated that the deceased party taunted him at that time, when he was passing nearby that he was carrying a dummy gun. Thereafter, altercation started between him and the deceased party. The deceased party tried to assault him and he ran for his safety towards the house of his brother. Deceased and the witnesses followed him throwing brick bats and raising lalkaras that they will not let him go alive. He feared being over- powered near the house of Mohinder Singh and in right of private defence fired two shots. He stated that the co-accused were not present. The other accused have denied the prosecution story in its entirety. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 MHC Gurmeet Singh, who has brought the record of FIR bearing No.107 of 1996 registered by Manjeet Kaur, daughter of Gurdial Singh against Sahib Singh @ Saba son of Bir Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has withheld the genesis of occurrence and has come out Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 9 with false story. The story that Ladoo while riding scooter struck against Puran Singh is not a believable and has been introduced so as to implicate the entire family of Gurdial Singh. It is argued that there is no reliable proof of recovery of empties from the place of occurrence and that Gurdial Singh alone was present at the place of occurrence and has fired two shots in self defence. The other appellants have been impleaded out of vendetta. The prosecution witnesses i.e. Jit singh and Jagtar Singh are not the truthful witnesses, as they have given contradictory statements before the police and in the Court. It is argued that other than Gurdial Singh, all other accused are said to be armed with dandas, but none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed in respect of use of such danda. It is argued that the prosecution story is unbelievable, as the accused are said to be carried dandas, but the allegations are that of throwing brick bats. The entire prosecution story is concocted one and based upon falsehood, thus, the same cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their assistance. As per the prosecution case, Puran Singh was standing in the chowk, when scooter driven by Ladoo struck against him. Ladoo is a young boy of 18 years, whereas Puran Singh is 35 years of age. Thus, the prosecution story that Puran Singh gave slaps to Laddo is believable. PW-3 Puran Singh, PW-4 Jit Singh and PW-5 Jagtar Singh are categorically that they were already standing in the chowk, when the scooter driven by Ladoo struck against Puran Singh and Puran Singh gave slaps to Ladoo. PW-4Jit Singh and PW-5 Jagtar Singh have denied that they had stated to the Police that they came to the place of occurrence after hearing noise after the scooter of Ladoo struck against Puran Singh. In view of their categorical deposition in the Court on oath, the unsigned statements recorded by the Investigating Officer cannot be relied upon. Thus, it stands Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 10 established that Puran Singh along with other prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-4 Jit Singh and PW-5 Jagtar Singh was standing at the chowk, when the scooter driven by Ladoo @ Baljinder Singh struck against him. Since Puran Singh was almost twice the age of Ladoo, he has given slaps to Ladoo. Such action of Puran Singh has infuriated Ladoo. He went to his home and called his brothers and his father Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh came armed with his licensed .12 bore double barrel gun after 15 minutes or so with all his sons. The said part of the prosecution case is trust worthy that a person will come to take revenge of act of giving of slaps. Thus, it is apparent that the accused except Mohinder Singh arrived at the place of occurrence infuriated by the slaps given by Puran Singh to accused Ladoo from the house of Gurdial Singh. Such is the categorical statement of all the prosecution witnesses.
The argument that Gurdial Singh was to read Sehra at the wedding of son of Jarnail Singh, to be solemnized on the said date, is not proved. Though the witnesses have admitted that the marriage was fixed on the said day and appellant Gurdial Singh used to read Sehra, but the fact that the appellant Gurdial Singh was to read Sehra at the wedding of son of Jarnail Singh is not proved. The best defence evidence could be Sarpanch himself, who can depose that he has requested Gurdial Singh to read Sehra and to attend the wedding with double barrel gun so as to celebrate marriage. The accused Gurdial Singh has raised such a plea in self defence, therefore, the burden to prove such fact shifts on him. He was expected to lead evidence in support of such plea that the appellant Gurdial Singh was invited for the purposes of firing of gun and also to recite Sehra. In the absence of such evidence and keeping in view eye witness account of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution story that the accused Gurdial Singh armed with double barrel gun along with his three sons came to the spot to Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 11 teach a lesson to Puran Singh and his companions for having given slaps to Ladoo stands established.
The argument that the appellants except Gurdial Singh are alleged to be armed with dandas but have hurled brick bats is contradictory and impossible, is again not tenable. The prosecution story is that the accused were armed with dandas, but have given brick bats blows. But even if story of throwing of brick bats by the appellants is not believed, still the appellants cannot be absolved of the offence of commission of crime. The absence of allegations of use of danda or hurling of brick bats does not absolve the appellants from the commission of offence. The fact that Ladoo has gone to his home and returned back with his father and brothers stands established. Even if such person were not carrying any weapon, mere fact, that they came with Ladoo, one of them armed with double barrel gun, is sufficient to return a finding that accused came to the place of occurrence with common intention to take revenge of act of giving slaps to son of Gurdial Singh by Puran Singh.
Gurdial Singh has said to have fired five shots. Three empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence by the Investigating Officer. The pellets have been recovered from the dead body of Laddi and Karam Singh. The pellets have been found embedded in the skull of Jagtar Singh and have been found in the body of Jit Singh as well. Jit Singh lost his one eye from the firing of shot by Guridal Singh. Two persons have died and three have received fire arm injuries. All three have supported the prosecution case on oath in Court. The manner of occurrence suggested by the prosecution has been rightly believed by the learned trial court. We do not find any illegality in the said findings.
The argument that three sons of Gurdial Singh and Mohinder Singh were not present at the time of occurrence, as no overt act of causing Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 12 injuries is attributed to them, is not tenable. Ladoo is a person aggrieved, as he is the one who has got slaps from Puran Singh. He is the person, who has gone to his house so as to call his father and brothers. Giving slap to a young boy of 18 years was enough to raise tampers in the family of Ladoo. The accused were nursing grievance against the son of Bir Singh, who is related to Puran Singh. The accused have examined DW-1 MHC Gurmeet Singh, who brought the record of FIR bearing No.107 of 1996 registered by Manjeet Kaur, daughter of Gurdial Singh against Sahib Singh @ Saba son of Bir Singh. The said grudge may not be known to Puran Singh, but the fact that the accused have relied upon such an FIR shows that the act of the accused to come to the place of occurrence was with common intention. Gurdial Singh and his sons have arrived at the place of occurrence after 15 minutes of giving slaps by Puran Singh. The near relations of Ladoo came to the place of occurrence from their residential house shows that the accused were having common intention when they arrived at the place of occurrence.
However, we find that Mohinder Singh son of Teja Singh was not sharing the common intention. The house of Mohinder Singh is situated close to the place from where Gurdial Singh is said to have fired. The house of Gurdial Singh is at a distance and is not reflected in the site plan. It appears that name of Mohinder Singh came to be introduced only because of proximity of his house from the place of occurrence and may be that his sympathies with the accused family. Thus, the presence of Mohinder Singh at the place of occurrence with an intention to teach a lesson to Puran Singh and his group is doubtful.
Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramashish Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 3830, wherein it has been held that for a conviction on account of Crl. Appeal No.454-DB of 2001 13 forming unlawful assembly, it has to be established that the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly. It was found that when the accused persons had gone to the field and were ploughing, it cannot be said that they constituted an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC. We have found that the presence of Mohinder Singh as a member of unlawful assembly is doubtful. Thus, it needs to be examined whether Gurdial Singh and his three sons had common intention for the commission of crime falling within the meaning of Section 34 IPC. As already discussed, Ladoo feeling aggrieved against the slaps given to him by Puran Singh. He went to his home and came back at the place of occurrence along with his father and brothers within 15 minutes. Thus, arrival at the scene of occurrence in such a manner leads to irresistible conclusion of sharing of common intention. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable.
In view of the above, the present appeal qua appellants Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo, Harjinder Singh @ Hira, Binder Singh @ Kaka and Gurdial Singh is dismissed, whereas we grant the benefit of doubt to Mohinder Singh. We, thus, acquit appellant Mohinder Singh son of Teja Singh from the charges leveled against him. He be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
May 04, 2011 (A.N.JINDAL)
Vimal JUDGE