Punjab-Haryana High Court
Teja Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 March, 2011
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002
Date of Decision : March 14, 2011
Teja Singh
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
T.P.S. MANN, J.
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.1.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -2- of imprisonment on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The appellant alongwith his son Charanjit Singh was tried on the allegations that on 9.10.1996 at about 7.00 A.M., the appellant killed Mangal Singh by intentionally and knowingly causing his death and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 IPC whereas Charanjit Singh committed an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant was also charged for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act for misusing his licensed .12 bore DBBL gun in committing the murder of Mangal Singh.
3. According to the prosecution, a ruqa was received from Dr. Harjinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Amargarh that dead body of Mangal Singh was received at the hospital and action be taken. ASI Sakattar Singh of Police Station, Amargarh left for the hospital and on reaching in front of the same, he met Kashmir Singh son of Gurdial Singh, brother of Mangal Singh deceased, who got recorded his statement Ex.PF, which is reproduced below :-
"It is stated that I am resident of village Chaunda and do agriculture. We are three brothers. Elder to me is Puran Singh who is posted as P.T.I. at a school of village Binjoke and elder to him is Mangal Singh who is Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -3- posted as D.P.E. at Senior Secondary School, Amargarh. My brother Mangal Singh used to go to Amargarh school to give coaching every morning. Today, at about 7.00 A.M., I and my bother Mangal Singh were going from our residential house towards grain market of Chaunda on foot. Because my father Gurdial Singh was sitting in the grain market near paddy, Mangal Singh had to take his motor cycle from the grain market and then to go to the school at Amargarh. When we reached the turning on the road from the street my cousin Jagtar Singh son of Gurnam Singh, caste Jat, resident of Chaunda was seen standing on the road outside his house. Then from the opposite side, Teja Singh son of Bhag Singh, caste Jat, resident of Chaunda, armed with .12 bore double barrel gun and Charan Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of Chaunda, armed with soti came. Charan Singh stated by raising lalkara that today Mangal Singh etc. be not allowed to go and be given taste of taking water course through their land. He further exhorted Teja Singh as to what he was waiting for and should fire.
Then Teja Singh after hurling an abuse, fired shot with his licensed .12 bore gun towards us, which fire hit directly in the chest of my brother Mangal Singh. Due to receipt of fire my brother Mangal Singh fell down on the corner of road. I and Jagtar Singh saw by going near that my brother Mangal Singh was Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -4- writhing in pain due to receipt of fire. I and Jagtar Singh raised alarm 'Na Maro, Na Maro'. On hearing our noise, Teja Singh and Charan Singh fled from the spot with their respective weapons. Then I and Jagtar Singh brought Mangal Singh to Civil Hospital, Amargarh for treatment after arranging private van, who died on reaching the hospital. Reason for grudge is that we have dispute with Teja Singh regarding government water course which goes through the land of Teja Singh. In that connection, on 7.10.1996, the Patwari and the Ziledar of canal department had come. After the Ziledar had left, there was an altercation between me and Teja Singh. This occurrence has been witnessed by me and Jagtar Singh with our own eyes. Due to grudge regarding water course, Teja Singh and Charan Singh, in connivance with each other, have killed my brother Mangal Singh.
Legal action be taken against them.
Statement has been got recorded which I
have heard and is correct.
Attested Sd/- Kashmir Singh"
Sakattar Singh ASI
P.S. Amargarh
9.10.1996
4. After making endorsement Ex.PF/1 on 9.10.1996 at 10.05 A.M., ASI Sakattar Singh sent the same to Police Station, Amargarh where, on its basis FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered on the Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -5- same day at 10.20 A.M. which was completed at 11.05 A.M. Special report was, thereafter, sent through C. Ajaib Singh and was received by the Judicial Magistrate at Malerkotla on the same day at 4.10 P.M.
5. During investigation, ASI Sakattar Singh prepared the inquest report Ex.PD and made the application Ex.PC to the SMO, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla. Post-mortem on the dead body of Mangal Singh was got conducted. ASI Sakattar Singh also visited the spot and took into possession the blood stained earth and converted it into a parcel of small plastic container and sealed the same with seal bearing impression 'SS' by preparing memo Ex.PG. A cartridge case of .12 bore was also recovered from the vacant plot belonging to Amar Singh, which was in front of the house of Teja Singh accused and its parcel was prepared which was sealed with seal bearing impression 'SS' and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM attested by the witnesses. Both the accused were arrested on 14.10.1996 and personal search memo of accused Teja Singh Ex.PQ and that of Charanjit Singh @ Charan Singh Ex.PR were separately prepared. Teja Singh accused was interrogated while in custody and he made a disclosure statement in pursuance whereof he got recovered .12 bore DBBL gun from the designated place which was converted into a parcel by SI Swaran Singh, SHO of the Police Station and Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -6- sealed with seal bearing impression 'SS'. The same alongwith ten live cartridges of the same bore and the arms licence of the accused were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PT. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PX was received and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PW regarding the examination of the gun and the cartridge case and pellets recovered from the dead body was also obtained.
6. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan followed by its commitment, the appellant and his co- accused were charged, as mentioned above. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Harjinder Singh, Medical Officer, PW2 Dr. Charanjit Singh PW3 Kashmir Singh, PW4 Jagtar Singh, PW5 Mohinder Singh, Ziledar, PW6 Naresh Kumar Garg, Draftsman, PW7 Amrit Pal, Clerk, PW8 MHC Nachhatar Singh, PW9 HC Balwinder Singh, PW10 C. Surjit Singh, PW11 Inspector Swaran Singh and PW12 ASI Sakattar Singh. Tarlochan Singh, Phula Singh, Labh Singh and Swaranjit Singh witnesses were given up as having been won over by the accused whereas the others as unnecessary.
8. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -7- implication on account of enmity and party faction in the village. Accused Teja Singh admitted that the gun Ex.PC belonged to him and that his arms licence was Ex.PL. He, however, denied the evidence of the recovery of the gun or making of any disclosure statement. None of the accused lead any evidence in defence.
9. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, believed the prosecution case against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned above. However, Charanjit Singh accused was acquitted of the charge against him.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that presence of PW3 Kashmir Singh and PW4 Jagtar Singh at the time of the occurrence was highly doubtful. They were cited as eye witnesses for the reason that they were closely related to the deceased. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the occurrence had taken place at 7.00 a.m. Possibility could not be ruled out about the occurrence having taken place in the early hours of the morning when no one had seen the occurrence. Lateron, when the family of the deceased noticed the dead body, a false case was set up against the appellant and his son on account of enmity and party faction. Finally, it is submitted that no offence under Section 302 IPC was made out and at the most, the offence might fall under Section Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -8- 304 IPC.
11. Learned State counsel has opposed the stand taken on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 9.10.1996 at 7.00 a.m., which was witnessed by PW3 Kashmir Singh and PW4 Jagtar Singh. At that time, the deceased, alongwith PW3 Kashmir Singh, had just started for the grain market as their father Gurdial Singh was present there alongwith motor cycle. Mangal Singh was to take the motor cycle from the grain market for going to the school at Amargarh. When both of them had covered some distance, their cousin Jagtar Singh met them. In the meanwhile, the appellant alongwith his son Charanjit Singh reached there and on raising of lalkara by Charanjit Singh, the appellant fired from his licensed gun, which hit Mangal Singh, since deceased, in his chest. After the accused fled away from the spot, both Kashmir Singh and Jagtar Singh took Mangal Singh in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Amargarh but he breathed his last on reaching the hospital. It is further submitted that the occurrence had taken place at 7.00 a.m. and not in the early hours of the morning when it was dark. Finally, it is submitted that the firing of shot by the appellant with an intention to kill Mangal Singh was sufficient to make the appellant liable for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
12. PW3 Kashmir Singh deposed in clear terms that on Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -9- 9.10.1996 at about 7/7.30 a.m., he alongwith Mangal Singh, since deceased, had started for the grain market on foot and when they reached on the curve near their house, the appellant and his son Charanjit Singh were present there. A Lalkara was raised by Charanjit Singh exhorting Teja Singh appellant to fire at Mangal Singh for teaching a lesson for claiming khal (water-course). At this, Teja Singh fired which hit Mangal Singh in his chest as a result whereof, Mangal Singh fell down. At that time, PW4 Jagtar Singh was also standing near the place of occurrence and he too witnessed the incident in which Mangal Singh was fired at by Teja Singh appellant on being exhorted by Charanjit Singh accused. Both of them then arranged a conveyance and removed Mangal Singh to Civil Hospital, Amargarh where he was declared dead by the doctor. He also deposed about the motive which impelled the appellant to kill Mangal Singh. He stated that the complainant party had moved an application to the Canal Department for getting the water course through the land of the accused and the Patwari and the Ziledar had visited the field on 7.10.1996. After their visit, there was exchange of hot words between the complainant party and the accused.
13. PW4 Jagtar Singh corroborated the version of his cousin Kashmir Singh by stating that he had also witnessed the occurrence in which Charanjit Singh accused had first raised a Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -10- lalkara pursuant to which Teja Singh appellant fired hitting Mangal Singh, since deceased, in his chest. The witness also deposed about the motive regarding the dispute over the water course, which was to pass through the fields of the accused.
14. Mere fact that PW3 Kashmir Singh was brother and PW4 Jagtar Singh was cousin of Mangal Singh, since deceased, is no ground to discard their testimonies. Both of them were natural witnesses of the occurrence. The place of occurrence was quite close to the house of PW3 Kashmir Singh. Both the witnesses stood the test of cross-examination. Apart from pointing certain minor discrepancies and trivial contradictions in their testimonies, the defence failed to shatter the main substratum of the prosecution case. The prompt reporting of the incident to the police lent independent corroboration to the testimonies of PW3 Kashmir Singh and PW4 Jagtar Singh. The occurrence had taken place on 9.10.1996 at 7.00 a.m. in village Chaunda wherein Mangal Singh had received a fire arm injury in his chest. Both PW3 Kashmir Singh and PW4 Jagtar Singh arranged a conveyance and removed Mangal Singh to Civil Hospital, Amargarh. As is clear from the heading of the FIR, Amargarh is at a distance of 5 miles from village Chaunda. PW1 Dr. Harjinder Singh had deposed that he had sent ruqa Ex. PA to the Police Station on 9.10.1996 at 8.45 a.m. regarding the arrival Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -11- of the dead body of Mangal Singh. Pursuant thereto, PW12 ASI Sakattar Singh reached Civil Hospital, Amargarh and recorded statement Ex. PF of Kashmir Singh. After completing the same and making endorsement Ex. PF/1 at 10.05 a.m., he sent the statement Ex.PF to the Police Station where on its basis FIR Ex. PF/2 came to be registered at 10.20 a.m. and completed at 11.05 a.m. From the above, it is clear that in about four hours' time after the incident in question, the dead body of Mangal Singh had reached the hospital and the statement of Kashmir Singh as eye witness was recorded and on its basis FIR was registered. It may also be mentioned here that the special report was also received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at Malerkotla on the same day at 4.10 p.m.
15. The defence tried to build its case on the assumption that for going to the grain market, Mangal Singh could have taken another route which passed in front of the house of Teja Singh- appellant and the said route was shorter than the one adopted by Mangal Singh. However, PW3 Kashmir Singh and PW4 Jagtar Singh denied that the route which passed in front of the house of Teja Singh was shorter. Rather, according to them, both the routes were almost of equal distance. In such a situation, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely because Mangal Singh had taken the route which did not pass in front of the house Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -12- of Teja Singh.
16. The ownership of the motor cycle, which Mangal Singh was to take from the grain market for going to the school had been challenged by the defence. Though PW3 Kashmir Singh had deposed that the motor cycle was purchased by Mangal Singh from a resident of village Dandrala whose name he did not know yet he stated that that person had given affidavit in favour of Mangal Singh. The non-production of the said affidavit in favour of Mangal Singh cannot be termed as a flaw in the prosecution case. Similarly, the non-production of the blood stained clothes of Kashmir Singh and Jagtar Singh before the police would not make their presence doubtful. Both of them had deposed that their clothes became stained with blood when they carried the victim in a van to the hospital and that they were wearing the same clothes in the hospital when the police reached there. Possibility could not be ruled out of ASI Sakattar Singh not noticing the stains of the blood on their clothes. Moreover, non- collection of evidence in the nature of blood stains clothes of the assailants could be material but not that of the witnesses, who had simply carried the victim to the hospital. The non attestation of the inquest papers by Kashmir Singh and Jagtar Singh has been well explained by the prosecution when PW4 Jagtar Singh deposed in his cross-examination that about 30/40 persons had Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -13- gathered by the time he had brought the van for carrying Mangal Singh to the hospital.
17. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in a residential area and a number of villagers resided in close vicinity yet no where it had appeared in the prosecution evidence or could be brought on record by the defence that apart from Kashmir Singh and Jagtar Singh, any one else had witnessed the occurrence. When only Kashmir Singh and Jagtar Singh were shown to be present at the time of the occurrence, no fault could be found with the prosecution about non-examining any Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar of the village in support of the ocular account.
18. As regards the time of occurrence, the prosecution has been able to establish that it had taken place at 7/7.30 a.m. on 9.10.1996. PW2 Dr. Charanjit Singh, who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mangal Singh, had deposed that the stomach contained 950 mls. of semi digested food. Had the occurrence taken place at about 4/5.00 a.m., there ought not to be any semi digested food found in the stomach. By that time the stomach would have emptied itself. Rather, the presence of so much of semi digested food is clear indication of the fact that the occurrence had taken place one/two hours after the intake of food by the victim. It was claimed by the prosecution that Mangal Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -14- Singh was to go to Amargarh where he used to give tuition. He had started from his house and proceeding towards the grain market so as to take the motor cycle from there and to drive to his place of work. Before starting from his house, he would have taken his breakfast. Moreover, after the occurrence, he was removed in an injured condition to the hospital but it was only on reaching the hospital at Amargarh that he breathed his last. The process of digestion does not come to stop on receipt of injuries. It would have continued till the time the victim succumbed to his injuries. From the ruqa Ex. PA sent by PW1 Dr.Harjinder Singh to the police regarding the arrival of dead body of Mangal Singh, it stands established that it was sent at 8.45 a.m. and sometime before the victim appeared to have died. By that time, the food which he had taken in the morning became semi digested but was still present in the stomach. This fact objectively confirms the incident to have taken place on 9.10.1996 at 7/7.30 a.m.
19. According to the prosecution, the appellant had fired from his .12 bore double barrel gun hitting Mangal Singh in his chest. PW2 Dr. Charanjit Singh while conducting post mortem observed that there were multiple entry wounds present on whole of anterior aspect of chest. Margins were inverted and bruised. Each wound measured about 3 mm in size. Blood was present on the chest. On dissection of chest, pellets were recovered from Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -15- the heart and both the lungs. The right pleural cavity had 1000 mls. of blood and blood clots while left pleural cavity had 1200 mls. of blood and blood clots. The injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to injury to vital organs, i.e. heart and lungs, which had resulted on account of receipt of fire- arm injuries. PW2 Dr. Charanjit Singh also proved opinion Ex. PE/1 given by him on 26.12.1996 on the application Ex. PE of the police that the injuries on the dead body of Mangal Singh could be the result of one fire. In cross-examination, the doctor deposed that the marks of pellets on the T-shirt had spread in an area of 18 inches. Both PW3 Kashmir Singh and PW4 Jagtar Singh had also deposed in their respective cross-examination that when the lalkara was raised by Charanjit Singh accused, the distance between Mangal Singh victim and Teja Singh appellant was about 30/40'. In the site-plan Ex.PK proved by PW6 Naresh Kumar Garg, Draftsman, it was mentioned that the distance between point 'A' where Mangal Singh had received the fire and mark 'B' from where the appellant had fired, the distance was about 4 karams. Both the aforementioned circumstances confirmed the fact of firing being resorted to by the appellant from a close distance. As he aimed the gun at Mangal Singh and the firing resulted in Mangal Singh being hit in the chest, the appellant can safely be saddled with liability under Section 302 Criminal Appeal No. D-221-DB of 2002 -16- IPC. No case is made out for holding that the appellant did not intend to cause the death of Mangal Singh or that he had fired from such a long distance that he never intended to hit the chest area of the deceased.
20. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
( M.M. KUMAR ) ( T.P.S. MANN )
JUDGE JUDGE
March 14, 2011
ajay-1