Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 14 May, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ3336
JUDGMENT S.K. Jain, J.
1. Rajinder Singh, Baldev Singh appellants along with Inder Singh and Gurdeep Singh were charged and tried under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Harjinder Singh, by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. He acquitted Inder Singh and Gurdeep Singh but convicted Rajinder Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Baldev Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced Rajinder Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year whereas Baldev Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in appeal.
2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 5-7-1989 at 10.30 a.m. Nirmal Singh PW along with Harjinder Singh, deceased of this case, and Gurdev Singh PW were going to Sunam from their native village Bishanpura on their respective bicycles, when they reached near the land of Sanmukh Singh Sarpanch of Village Moranwali, Inder Singh and Rajinder Singh alias Raj Singh armed with takua and gandasa respectively; Baldev Singh and Gurdeep Singh armed with a dang each came on two scooters from the side of village Bishanpura. They parked the scooters, alighted there from and surrounded them. They ran for their lives towards the field of Sanmukh Singh but were chased by the accused. Inder Singh gave a takua blow on the right leg of Harjinder Singh PW. Rajinder Singh accused dealt gandasa blow on right leg of Harjinder Singh PW. Baldev Singh accused dealt a dang blow on his left leg. Harjinder Singh fell down as a result of these blows. While he was lying down Gurdeep Singh dealt a dang blow on his right hand near the thumb. Other accused persons inflicted further injuries with their respective weapons using them like dang on the person of Harjinder Singh. Thereafter all the four accused persons made good their escape along with their respective weapons. After having made arrangement for conveyance Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh removed Harjinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Sunam.
3. PVV 1 Dr. V. K. Sobat medico legally examined Harjinder Singh at 12.15 p.m. on the same day and found following injuries on his person.
1. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the front of right leg. 10 cm from the knee joint, fresh bleeding was present. X. ray was advised.
2. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the front of right leg. 2 cm below the injury No. 1. Fresh bleeding was present. X. ray was advised.
3. Pinkish contusion 10 cm x 9 cm on the front of left leg with over lying lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm on the left leg. Fresh bleeding was present. Tenderness was present. X-ray was advised.
4. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the palmer surface of right thumb in the middle. Underlying bone was coming out of the wound. X-ray was advised.
5. Pinkish contusion 8 cm x 7 cm on the back of right hand on the lateral part. X-ray was advised.
6. Complaint of pain in the abdomen on the chest and back of thorax.
He opined that all the injuries were fresh and that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas injuries Nos. 3 to 6 by blunt weapon.
4. Ruqa Ex. PB was sent by this doctor to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sunam informing about the admission of Harjinder Singh with multiple injuries in the hospital. On receipt of the said ruqa Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh reached Civil Hospital, Sunam and sought medical opinion regarding the fitness of Harjinder Singh to make a statement but vide Ex. PD/1 the doctor opined that he was not fit to make a statement. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector recorded the statement Ex. PO of Nirmal Singh who had met him there. While he was in process of completing the said statement he received information vide ruqa Ex. PC at the police Station at 1.45 p.m. from Senior Medical Officer, Sunam that Harjinder Singh had succumbed to his injuries. After appending endorsement Ex. PO/1 under the statement of Nirmal Singh he sent the same to the Police Station where formal First Information Report Ex. PO/1 was recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh.
5. Assistant Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh then prepared inquest report Ex. PF on the dead body of Harjinder Singh and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination through Constables Manjit Singh and Karnail Singh.
6. Dr. H. L. Garg PW 2 performed the autopsy on the dead body of Harjinder Singh. We found following injuries on his person: --
1. A stiched wound 2.5 cm was present on the right leg. It was 10 cm below the knee joint.
2. Stiched wound 3 cm was present on the front of right leg. It was 2 cm below the injury No. 1. On dissection blood clots were present. There was no bony injury.
3. There was contusion reddish in colour 10 cm x 9 cm on the front of left leg with over lying lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm.
On dissection haemotoma and bleeding was present. Vessels were ruptured. Both bones fractured completely in the upper part.
4. Stiched wound was present on the palmer surface of right thumb.
On dissection blood clots were present and under lying bone was found fractured.
5. A contusion 8 cm was present on the back of right hand.
On dissection blood clots were present. There was no bony injury.
6. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.2 bone deep was present in the left frontol bone. It was 4 cm above the left eye brow.
On dissection, blood clot was present under the scalp. Frontal bone was cut. On further dissection menings were found lacerated. Bleeding was present and haemotoma was also present.
Walls, ribs, cartilages, pleasure (sic) larynx and tracheas were found normal. Both the lungs were healthy and congested. Paricardium were normal. Heart and large vessels were normal. Both the chambers were empty. He also found :--
The walls were distended, peritonium,| mouth, pharynx, oesophagaous, stomach was healthy and contained 40 cc of semi digested, digested and gastric juices, small intestine was healthy and contained chyre (sic) large intestines were healthy and contained faecal matter. Liver, spleen and kidney were healthy and congested. Bladder was healthy and contained 20 cc of urine or ganes (sic) of generations were healthy.
The Autopsy Surgeon opined: --
(i) that the death had been caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries, mainly injury No. 6 which was on the head;
(ii) that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; and
(iii) that the probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within six hours and between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours.
7. This order had removed banyan Ex. P2, Kamij Ex. P3 and Kachha Ex. P4 from the dead body and delivered the same to the police in the form of a sealed parcel.
8. Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh went to village Bishanpura and inspected the spo| in the field of Surmakh Singh Sarpanch. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PR of the spot. He lifted one turban Ex. P6 and one fellow of shoe of left foot Ex. P5 vide recovery memo Ex. PQ.
9. Assistant Sub-Inspector Tilak Raj PW 8 arrested all the four accused persons on 11-7-1989. Gandasa Ex. P1, lathis Ex. P7 and Ex. P8 were recovered at the instance of accused Rajinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Baldev Singh respectively.
10. On 17-8-1989 Mohinder Singh brother of Rajinder Singh accused produced Bajaj Chetak Scooter No. PCT 3000 Ex. P9 before Assistant Sub-Inspector Tilak Raj. He seized the same vide recovery memo Ex. PC. Kulwant Singh and Gurdev Singh produced road master bicycle Ex. P10 of Rajinder Singh deceased which was seized vide recovery memo Ex. PW. On 4-9-1990 at the bus stand, Bishanpura one Vijay Super Scooter Ex. P8 bearing No. PND 9716 and its registration certificate Ex. PY was produced by Gurbachan Singh, father of Rajinder Singh accused before Assistant Sub-Inspector Tilak Raj which he seized vide various recovery memos.
11. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the accused were arraigned on such like allegations for the murder of Harjinder Singh.
12. Before the trial Court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Nirmai Singh and Gurdev Singh, eye-witnesses, supported the version of the prosecution.
13. The accused persons when examined by the trial Court under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, came forth with the plea of denial simpliciter and false implication. Their contention is that there was no enmity between them and the deceased. However, Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh were inimical towards them, Nirmal Singh was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. He had reached the hospital after the death of the deceased and concocted a false story against them. There was rumour in the village that Harjinder Singh was murdered by his brothers due to their inter se enmity between them. Harjinder Singh apprehended danger to his life at the hands of Paramjit Singh and Kulwant Singh. He had received injuries at the hands of some unknown persons when he had gone to ease himself in the fields in the small hours of the morning; that Gulzar and Kartar Singh removed him from the field to his house. Paramjit Singh and Kulwant Singh were being suspected for causing injuries to him and, therefore, he was not taken to the hospital nor a report was lodged in the police station but when his condition deteriorated, he was removed to and got admitted in the hospital. The police had changed the place of occurrence.
14. The accused-appellant examined DW 1 Darbara Singh, DW 2 Head Constable Gamdoor Singh, PW 3 DSP Durga Dass and DW 4 Shamsher Singh in their defence when called upon to do so by the trial Court.
15. The trial Court believing the ocular evidence of Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh PWs, eye witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above but acquitted Inder Singh and Gurdeep Singh as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.
17. Following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case : --
Hazara Singh
|
____________________________________________
| |
Sohan Singh Bir Singh
| |
_______________________________ _______________________
| | | |
Inder Singh Sawaran Sohan Singh Gurbachan
(acquitted Jaswant Kaur Kaur (daugh- | Singh
accused) (wife) ter) married to | |
| Ajaib Singh | _____________
_____________________ | | |
| | | | Rajinder Baldev
Ranjit Singh Gurdeep Singh Nirmal | Singh Singh
(aged 14/15 (acquitted Singh | (accused- (accused-
years) accused) PW5 | appellant appellant
| No. 1) No. 2)
_______________________
| | |
Kulwant Paramjit Harjinder
Singh Singh Singh
(deceased)
There is considerable force in the contention of Shri R.S. Chai, learned Senior counsel for the appellants that Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh PWs had not seen the occurrence and that Assistant Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh after examining the dead body had set up an imaginative version regarding the injuries given by the accused and had introduced the above said Nirmal Singh PW falsely who was readily available on account of his enmity with the accused that Nirmal Singh had of his own introduced another false witness Gurdev Singh and that inordinate delay of about six hours in conveying the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate was due to the above said reasons. Perusal of the evidence on record would show that the occurrence had taken place at 10.30 a.m. in the field of Sanmukh Singh Sarpanch in the area of village Akalgarh within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sunam which was at a distance of seven kilometers from there. It is revealed from ruqa Ex. PB that the injured had reached the hospital at 11.30 a.m. that very day. This ruqa was received by Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh and he had completed the statement of Nirmal Singh at 2 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Sunam. The First Information was recorded at 2.15 p.m. but the special report was delivered to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate who resided locally, after about six hours, at 8.10 p.m., on the same day. Constable Khushi Ram who carried and delivered the ruqa, in his affidavit Ex. PN/1 had simply stated that he delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate in intact condition. He is conspicuously silent about the time of the receipt of the First Information Report by him and that of its delivery to the Ilaqa Magistrate. This unexplained inordinate delay of six hours speaks volumes. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the First Information Report was recorded at 6 p.m. when Nirmal Singh came and took the entire burden on him, seems to be more probable in view of the fact that Medico Legal Report, inquest report and First Information Report there is uniform omission in imputing injury on the forehead of the victim to particular accused.
18. It is revealed in the testimony of PW 7 Sub-Inspector Joginder Singh that when he had reached the hospital, Medico Legal Examination of Harjinder Singh had already been completed and he had obtained the copy of the M.L.R. before the First Information Report had been recorded. Combined reading of the statement of Dr. V.K. Sobat PW 1 who medico legally examined Harjinder Singh and Medico Legal Report Ex. PA shows that there were five injuries on his person besides a complaint of pain in the abdomen. Injury on the forehead as found by the Autopsy Surgeon does not find mention in the Medico Legal Report. Perusal of the First Information Report shows that four injuries have been attributed to four accused persons through the mouth of Nirmal Singh PW, fifth injury being only the complaint of pain in the abdoman. Had Nirmal Singh seen the occurrence he would have also mentioned about the incised injury on the forehead of Harjinder Singh. Seemingly, he after arriving in the hospital had seen the Medico Legal Report and without knowing that there was also an incised wound on the forehead of Harjinder Singh, he attributed one injury each to the four accused persons. Further more, the inquest report Ex. PF was prepared in the hospital, statement of Gurdev Singh PW 1 was also recorded therein. He has clearly stated that when he came to know that Inder Singh etc., had left Harjinder Singh in an injured condition and he had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Sunam. He reached the hospital along with Kulwant Singh in order to enquire about his health but he had come to know that Harjinder Singh had died due to those injuries. From his above statement, it is abundantly clear that he was not present at the time and place of the occurrence and was not an eye-witness. There is not even a shred and scintilla of evidence on record to show that the accused persons had any direct enemity with Harjinder Singh.
19. On the other and, gift deed Ex. DE shows that maternal grandfather (Nana) of Nirmal Singh PW 5 had gifted his lands to his grand son Gurdeep Singh (acquitted accused) son of Inder Singh (another acquitted accused) and to Smt. Jaswant Kaur wife of Inder Singh-above mentioned. Ex. DG is a copy of the decree-sheet which shows that Sohan Singh had suffered a consent decree in favour of Inder Singh (acquitted accused) and his minor son Ranjit Singh thereby transferring his agricultural land in their favour. By these two documents Sohan Singh had disinherited Nirmal Singh accused from the share of his property which would have come to him through his mother Sawaran Kaur, daughter of Sohan Singh. Therefore, naturally Nirmal Singh harboured ill-will against acquitted accused Inder Singh, his son another acquitted accused Gurdeep Singh.
20. As far as Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh are concerned, Nirmal Singh PW 5 had admitted in his examination-in-chief that there was a dispute of land with Gurbachan Singh, their father. This fact is further supported by copy of the judgment passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sunam in Civil Suit No. 194 dated 17-3-1989 decided on 10-4-1990. Copy of decree sheet is Ex. DJ. This suit for permanent injunction filed by Gurbachan Singh, father of Rajinder Singh, and Baldev Singh accused against Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh PWs and one Gurnam Singh was decreed. Nirmal Singh etc. were restrained from interfering in the exclusive possession of Gurbachan Singh on 18 kanals 8 marks of land. In the same suit temporary injunction was also granted against Nirmal Singh etc. and in favour of Gurbachan Singh, father of Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh accused vide copy of order Ex. DK. Copy of the judgment Ex. DL shows that Civil Suit No. 98 dated 6-4-1976 for permanent injunction filed by above said Gurbachan Singh against Gurdev Singh and his brother Gurnam Singh and four others was decreed on 18-3-1977. Copy of decree sheet Ex. DN shows that Civil Suit No. 350 filed by members of Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., against above said Gurbachan Singh was dismissed. In the array of parties Gurdev Singh PW and his brother Sawn Singh have been shown as the members of the society. Civil Suit No. 33 filed by the members of the above society, including Gurdev Singh PW, against Gurbachan Singh for possession was dismissed vide copy of judgment Ex. DO and decree sheet Ex. DP. Ex. DO and Ex. DR show that further appeals against the above said judgments had failed.
21. From the scrutiny of the above said documentary, evidence it is clear that there was a protracted litigation between the two PWs on one hand and Gurbachan Singh, father of the two appellants, on the other hand. This fact further lends corroborationj to the fact that the two witnesses made themselves handy to the police in becoming the eye-witnesses in order to wreck vengeance against the accused. Fellow of the shoe Ex. P5 and turban Ex. P6 which were allegedly lifted from the spot have not in any way been connected with the deceased nor there was any corresponding cut on the turban. These were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban or the Serologist in order to ascertain as to whether these were stained with human blood or not. Thus, the recovery of these articles from the spot does not render any corroboration to the ipse dixit of eye-witnesses.
22. Assistant Sub-Inspector Tilak Raj PW 8 has stated that the bicycle of Harjinder Singh Ex. P10 was produced before him on 17-8-1989 by Kulwant Singh and Gurdev Singh which he had seized vide recovery memo Ex. PW. But Nirmal Singh PW had stated that when he had come to the spot with the police cycle of Harjinder Singh was lying at the spot; that his cycle and that of Gurdev Singh were not lying in the khandans and that they might have been taken by other members of his family; and that he had seen his cycle in his house when he had returned there. Thus the production of the bicycle of the deceased ten days after the occurrence also lends no assurance to the version of the eye-witnesses about the place of occurrence.
23. Besides what has been stated above, even place of occurrence as pointed out by the eye-witness is doubtful inasmuch as no blood was found lying there even though Harjinder Singh is stated to have received six incised wound at the place. Thus, the ocu evidence of Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh PWs that the occurrence had taken place in the fields of Sanmukh Singh is also not acceptable. The driver of the four-wheeler wherein Harjinder Singh was removed to the hospital has neither been cited as a witness nor examined by the trial. This also renders the prosecution story doubtful.
24. From the above discussion, we have arrived at the conclusion that Nirmal Singh and Gurdev Singh were not present at the date, time and place of the incident and had not seen the occurrence. Their being no other corroborative evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in this murder, there is no option but to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of murder of Harjinder Singh against the accused namely Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court being not sustainable is hereby set aside by accepting the appeal and acquitting the appellants of the above referred charge. They be set at libery forthwith if not required in any other case.