Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 1
Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: January 14, 2011
Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000
Mukhtiar Singh and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. D.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000
Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.S.Cheema, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
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?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 filed by Mukhtiar Singh and Randhir Singh @ Dhira against the Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 2 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.05.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, convicting and sentencing appellant Mukhtiar Singh for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and appellant Randhir Singh @ Dhira for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well as to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The appellants were also convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 148 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act; and Criminal Revision No.814 of 2000 filed by Jaswinder Singh son of the deceased Harpal Singh claiming Rs.10 lacs as compensation.
The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Jaswinder Singh son of Harpal Singh (deceased) made to Inspector Satinder Pal Singh at about 2.20 PM on 07.08.1996. In his statement (Ex.PA), Jaswinder Singh has stated that today i.e. 07.08.1996, he, his father Harpal Singh and his father's elder brother Karnail Singh had come to the Courts at Faridkot to obtain a copy of judgment from the Copying Branch of Sessions Court. After submitting the application, they were coming on feet from the Courts to Faridkot city. He stated that at about 1.30 PM, when they reached 30-35 karams ahead of the gate of Civil Hospital, a jeep bearing registration No.PB 30-6068 driven by Randhir Singh @ Dhira son of Harbans Singh, came from their back side and stopped near them. He stated that Mukhtiar Singh son of Mohan Singh, armed with double barrel gun, was sitting on the front seat alongwith the driver; Tar Singh of Village Jhandewala; Sohan Singh of Harike Kalan; and Iqbal Singh son of Harnek Singh empty Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 3 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 handed alighted from the back side of the jeep alongwith Randhir Singh @ Dhira. Immediately after alighting, Randhir Singh @ Dhira raised lalkara and exhorted his father's elder brother to shot a fire at them and exhorted his remaining companions to surround them. Thereafter, Mukhtiar Singh fired a short from his 12 bore double barrel gun at his father Harpal Singh, which hit on the neck of his father. His father fell down. He and his father's elder brother Karnal Singh raised noise, but the accused succeeded in fleeing away from the spot on the jeep with their weapon. He stated that when he and his father's elder brother Karnal Singh went near his father, they found that Harpal Singh had died because of fire injury. He stated that the motive for committing crime was that a case is pending against him and his father in the Court for the murder of Mukhtiar Singh's nephew Jasvir Singh @ Jaggi. He and his father are on bail. Due to this grievance, they have attacked them and that all the five accused with their common intention have murdered his father Harpal Singh by firing a shot. He stated that after leaving his father's elder brother Karnail Singh with the dead body, he was going to Police Station to lodge the report, but on the way the police party headed by Inspector Satinder Pal Singh met him and recorded his statement. In the police proceedings (Ex.PA/1) recorded in front of Bhai Pheru Khalsa Senior Secondary School at about 2.20 PM, Inspector Satinderpal Singh has recorded that higher officials and the control room be informed through wireless message and special reports be sent to the higher officers. On the basis of said statement, FIR (Ex.PA/2) was lodged at about 2.25 PM for the offences punishable under Section 302/148/149 IPC as well as under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The recording of FIR was completed at about Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 4 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 3.05 PM. The inquest report Ex.PH/2 was prepared by Inspector Satinderpal Singh. The said inquest report was attested by Avtar Kaur and Balbir Singh. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Harpal Singh was conducted by Dr. R.K.Goria and Dr. S.S.Sandhu at about 9.00 AM on 08.08.1996.
After completion of investigation including obtaining the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PX) to the fact that 12 bore cartridge case marked-C/1 has been fired from the right barrel of the double barrel gun No.9239-94 and reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exs.PY and PZ) to the fact that Item No.31 (Pagri) was stained with human blood, all the five accused namely Mukhtiar Singh, Randhir Singh @ Dhira, Iqbal Singh, Sohan Singh and Tar Singh, were made to stand trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Jaswinder Singh and PW-8 Karnail Singh, eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution has also examined Dr. R.K.Goria as PW- 6, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Harpal Singh; Punjab Singh as PW-11, who arrested the accused Mukhtiar Singh, Randhir Singh and Iqbal Singh; and Lal Singh, a police official, who was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, as PW-12. Whereas, Inspector Satinderpal Singh, the Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-14.
On the basis of evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Randhir Singh @ Dhira, as mentioned above. However, Iqbal Singh, Sohan Singh and Tar Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them by Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 5 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 granting benefit of doubt. Mukhtiar Singh-appellant No.1 died during the pendency of present appeal on 24.02.2010. A certified copy of the death certificate produced by the learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record. Thus, appeal against appellant No.1 Mukhtiar Singh stands abated.
The learned counsel for appellant Randhir Singh @ Dhira has argued that in the statement Ex.PA, it has been stated that Randhir Singh @ Dhira has raised lalkara and exhorted his father's elder brother to fire shot a fire at the complainants and exhorted his remaining companions to surround them. But in his statement on oath in the Court, PW-1 Jaswinder Singh has deposed that Randhir Singh @ Dhira has raised lalkara addressing his uncle Mukhtiar Singh that he should fire at Harpal Singh and that the complainant and Karnail Singh should be encircled. It is argued that PW-8 Karnail Singh has substantially supported the stand of Jaswinder Singh in statement Ex.PA, but while appearing as a prosecution witness in Court, he has not stated that Randhir Singh @ Dhira alighted from the jeep. It is argued that there is material discrepancy in the manner of occurrence as per the prosecution witnesses than the first version in the FIR. Relying upon the statement of PW-1 Jaswinder Singh and PW-8 Karnail Singh, it is argued that there are numerous litigations are pending between the parties including a complaint filed by the wife of the deceased for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, therefore, the false implication of the appellants due to enmity cannot be ruled out.
It is also argued that the prosecution has not explained the injuries No.6 to 15 as reported by PW-6 Dr. R.K.Goria in the post- Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 6 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 mortem report Ex.PF. It is argued that as per the prosecution case, only one shot was fired, which may explain injuries No.1 to 5, the exit wounds. But the other injuries suffered by the deceased enumerated by Dr. Goria at Sr.Nos.6 to 15 have not been explained. It is contended that injuries so described leave to an impression of grappling of the deceased with the assailants, but that is not the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellants.
It is argued that the place of occurrence is in the main city and the Police Station Kotwali is about 100 yards away from the place of occurrence. Number of public offices is situated near the place of occurrence, but none of the independent witnesses have been joined and examined. In the absence of examination of an independent witness, there is no objective corroboration to the prosecution case. It is argued that PW-11 Punjab Singh deposed that he has arrested the accused at 1.30 PM. Still further, the attesting witnesses in inquest proceedings are not Jaswinder Singh and Karnail Singh, the alleged eye-witnesses, but Avtar Kaur and Balbir Singh, therefore, the inquest proceedings have been conducted prior in time of the lodging of FIR. It is also contended that from the testimony of PW-2 Naresh Kumar, it is apparent that there is interpolation in the register of the Copying Agency, which knocks down the prosecution case that Jaswinder Singh had applied for a copy with the copying agency of the Sessions Court. It is also argued that record of the wireless message has not been produced on record to support the fact that the FIR was not lodged after the arrest of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond any reasonable Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 7 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 doubt, which may sustain the conviction of appellant No.2- the sole surviving convict. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that double barrel gun licenced in favour of appellant No.2 was used by Mukhtiar Singh. There is no evidence to connect the use of such gun by Mukhtiar Singh.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully. We do not find that the statement of PW-1 Jaswinder Singh or PW-8 Karnail Singh are in any way materially discrepant, so as to raise any doubt about the prosecution case in respect of manner of occurrence. The witnesses namely PW-1 Jaswinder Singh and PW-8 Karnail Singh have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination conducted on number of dates. There is no material discrepancy in the first version Ex.PA and in the statement on oath made in the Court by Jaswinder Singh as PW-1. He has deposed that Randhir Singh @ Dhira raised lalkara exhorting his uncle Mukhtiar Singh to fire at Harpal Singh and the witness and Karnail Singh should be encircled. Whereas, in his statement Ex.PA, lalkara is to shot fire and encircle them. The alleged contradiction in the statement of PW-8 Karnail Singh is that he has not deposed that Randhir Singh @ Dhira has alighted from the jeep. The said contradictions or omissions are inconsequential. The witnesses were appearing after long time. It was not expected of them to repeat the sequence of occurrence on oath in a parrot like manner as given in FIR. It is only manner of giving sequence of events, which is sought to be interpreted differently. Statements given in Punjabi can be translated or transcribed by different persons in different manner. The statements of PW-1 Jaswinder Singh PW-8 Karnail Singh do not render their Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 8 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 presence at the spot unbelievable or the story of the prosecution as doubtful.
The argument that PW-1 Jaswinder Singh was not present at the spot is again not tenable for the reason that FIR has been recorded at 2.20 PM i.e. soon after the incident. PW-2 Naresh Kumar has proved the record of the Copying Agency Ex.PB, the application to obtain copy. It shows that an application was, in fact, made on 07.08.1996 by Jaswinder Singh through his counsel Shri Chamkaur Singh Brar. The argument that name of Jaswinder Singh was interpolated in the register, the extract of which is Ex.PC, is not made out, as the parties name of the case, the copy of which was applied is 'State Vs. Jaswinder Singh'.
The argument that injuries No.6 to 15 on the person of the deceased have not been explained is again not tenable. Such injuries are abrasions on the forehead, nose, left and right elbows and left knee. PW-1 Jaswinder Singh in his cross-examination has explained that his father tumbled down the foot path for about 2-3 minutes and has rubbed his body on the cemented foot path. PW-12 Lal Singh has deposed in his cross-examination that the dead body was lying on a foot path at the height of 6 inch from the road and that the foot path is smooth. The abrasions on the face and other parts of the body of Harpal Singh could be caused on account of sudden fall soon after the fire arm injury and before his death as deposed by PW-6 Dr. R.K.Goria.
The argument that Jaswinder Singh and has family has enmity against the accused and, thus, the false story has been created to involve the present appellants is again not tenable. It has come on Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 9 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 record that in respect of death of Jasvir Singh @ Jaggi, Jaswinder Singh and his father Harpal Singh (deceased) were the accused. It has also come on record that wife of Harpal Singh deceased has lodged a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The enmity between the parties is like a double sword weapon. It could be a motive for the complainant to implicate the accused as well as for the accused to eliminate the deceased. Keeping in view the entire evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants by reliable and trustworthy eye-witness account supported by the circumstances on record.
From the statement of PW-14 Inspector Satinderpal Singh, the Investigating Officer, it is apparent that after FIR was recorded and he went to the place of occurrence. He has deposed that in the meantime, Punjab Singh brought the accused Mukhtiar Singh, Randhir Singh @ Dhira and Iqbal Singh alongwith the jeep after apprehending them. Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police also reached at the spot and he prepared inquest report. PW-11 Punjab Singh has deposed that he came out of Bachitter Hotel after taking meals at about 1.30 PM and then he heard the wireless message that Jeep No.PB 30-6068 has escaped after committing murder and the suspects were duly armed. The jeep was apprehended near Jubli Cinema and Mukhtiar Singh, Randhir Singh and Iqbal Singh were apprehended, whereas two remaining persons succeeded in running away. Such statement shows that two police teams were constituted, one went to the spot and the other arrested the accused with jeep.
Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 10Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000
The argument that the accused were arrested at about 1.30 PM and FIR has been lodged subsequent to the inquest proceedings, is again not tenable. The time of recording of FIR, the action taken by the police is not in dispute, but it cannot be said that the time given by PW- 11 Punjab Singh i.e. 1.30 PM, when he came out of Bachitter Hotel after taking meals is precise. Since the incident has occurred in the close vicinity of a Police Station, many steps were taken simultaneously. Recording of FIR, flashing of wireless message could happen simultaneously and has been so proved from the statement of PW-14 Inspector Satinderpal Singh, the Investigating Officer. The accused have been arrested from the City Faridkot itself soon after the incident along with the offending double barrel gun. In fact, PW-11 Punjab Singh has been suggested that Mukhtiar Singh has fired a shot at ferocious dog, which attacked him to explain the empty cartridge in the gun. Such cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused Mukhtiar Singh shows that firing from the double barrel gun was not disputed by him in the cross-examination. The double barrel gun was recovered soon after the occurrence from Mukhtiar Singh by PW-11 Punjab Singh. PW-1 Jaswinder Singh and PW-8 Karnail Singh are categorical that Mukhtiar Singh fired from double barrel gun. The argument that PW-8 Karnail Singh has deposed that he cannot say that the gun in the hands of Mukhtiar Singh was double barrel gun was not correct. It appears that English translation has a superfluous word. In original Punjabi version, the witness has stated that the gun with Mukhtiar Singh was double barrel gun although he cannot give any further description. Still further, the report of the FSL Ex.PX proves that the empty recovered from the right barrel belongs to a gun, which Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 11 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 was recovered from Mukhtiar Singh. Such facts conclusively prove that a shot was fired from the double barrel gun by Mukhtiar Singh which hit Harpal Singh on the back side of neck, resulting into his death.
The argument that no independent witnesses have been joined though available is again not tenable. PW-14 Satinderpal Singh, the Investigating Officer has deposed that none of the persons present at the spot were willing to give their statement. He did not make any public persons as a witness on any recovery memo because none was willing to cooperate with the Police. It is true that no independent witness has been joined by the prosecution agency. It is also equally true that the general public shy away from joining the Police investigations. In the absence of independent witness, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is required to be examined with great care and caution. The statements of the witnesses cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are related to the deceased. The evidence on record proves not only the presence of the witnesses, but their truthfulness which is also corroborated from the facts available on record.
Similarly, we do not find any merit in the argue that the inquest report preceded to the FIR, as the witnesses of the inquest report are the near relations of the deceased, who live in close proximity of the place of occurrence. Mere fact that the witnesses of the inquest report are not Jaswinder Singh and Karnail Singh, is not sufficient to lead inference that the inquest proceedings have been completed in time prior to the FIR. It is not necessary that the attesting Crl. Appeal No.238-DB of 2000 & 12 Crl. Revision No.814 of 2000 witnesses in the inquest proceedings should also be the eye-witnesses. The close proximity of time of lodging of FIR soon after the occurrence including sending of special report to the Magistrate shows that the police was actively pursuing the case, may be for the reason that the murder has taken place in the main city and near the Police Station. There is nothing to infer from the record that the inquest proceedings have preceded the recording of FIR, except the argument raised now before this Court.
In view of the above, the appeal against appellant No.1 Mukhtiar Singh stands abated, whereas appeal against appellant No.2 Randhir Singh @ Dhira is dismissed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of appellant No.2 to serve his remaining sentence.
However, we do not find any ground to award compensation amounting to Rs.10 lacs in the present proceedings. It shall be open to the petitioner to claim compensation in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
With the said observations, the present appeal as well as criminal revision stand disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
14.01.2011 (GURDEV SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE