Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 30 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ2600
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT Sat Pal, J.
1. By this judgment, we are disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 46-DB of 1995 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 326 of 1995 as both the said appeal and the revision petition arise out of the same judgment dated 10th January, 1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jullundur. Criminal Appeal No. 46DB of 1995 has been filed by the appellant Paramjit Singh and appellant Pavittar Singh, who have been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs./1000- and in default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further RI for three months. Crl. Revision Petition No. 326 of 1995 has been filed by Harbhajan Singh whose von Daljeet Singh is alleged to have been murdered by appellants Paramjit Singh and Pavittar Singh and in this revision petition, it has been prayed that the said accused may be directed to pay Rs. lac as compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. to me legal heirs of the deceased.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a case was registered under Section 302/34, I.P.C. against appellants Paramjit Singh and Pavittar Singh at PS Banga on 29-5-1992 at 6.20/6.55 p.m. vide FIR Exhibit PA/2 on the basis of statement exhibit PA of Harbhajan Singh (father of the deceased) (PW 1). The said statement Exhibit PA was recorded by AS1 Kashmir Singh (PW 4) at Canal Bridge village Hakimpur on 29-5-1992 at 5.15 p.m. The special report was delivered at the place of the Haqaa Magistrate at Nawanshahar at 10 p.m. on the same day. It may be pointed out here that the distance between the place of occurrence and PS Banga is 8 kms. and the distance between PS Banga and the place of the Haqaa Magistrate is 12/13 Kms.
3., PW 1 Harbhajan Singh, in his statement Exhibit PA stated that he was a resident of village Teharpur and had three sons and one of them was Daljit Singh (deceased) who was aged 15/16 years. He further submitted that on 29-5-1992 his father Pinra Singh, his brother Joga Singh and he had been putting manure in the fields since mornhis which was being carried on arehri (small cart) and at about 11 a.m. his son Daljit Singh went to imgate the sugarcane field with the tubewell operated by engine. He remained present there and at about 3 p.m. they were coming to the field with a loaded rehri (of manure) and when they were about to unload the manure after parking the rehri in the field, they saw that Pavittar Singh and Paramjit Singh (appellants herein) residents of the same village were pulling and dragging his son Daljit Singh in the Pudina (mint) field. They parked rehri there and saw that Daljit Singh was lying dead near the edge of water-channel and within their sight said Paramjit Singh and Pavittar Singh fled away from the spot towards the tubewell of Ajit Singh and while going away, both the brothers were raising lalkaras that whosoever took their land on mortgage would face the same consequences. He further stated that the cause of grudge is that his father Piara Singh son of Niranjan Singh had taken 2½ killas of land on mortgage from Piara Singh son of Puran Singh which was resented to by the sons of Piara Singh son of Puran Singh. He further stated that prior to this, there was some dispute between them which was got compromised with the intervention of the Panchayat. Paramjit Singh and Pavittar Singh sons of Piara Singh had murdered his son and the occurrence had been witnesses by his father, his brother Joga Singh and by him.
4. P.W. 4, ASI Kashmir Singh made endorsement Exhibit PA/2 on the statement Exhibit PA and thereafter formal FIR was recorded as stated earlier. Thereafter P.W. 4 went to the spot in the area of village Teharpur where the dead body of Daljit Singh was lying. He prepared the inquest report Exhibit PC and sent the dead body for post mortem examination through Constable Parkash and HC Avtar Singh. He prepared the rough site plan Exhibit PE with marginal notes and recorded the statement of Piara Singh and other PWs.
5. P.W. 2 Dr. Inder Mohan Singh of Civil Hospital, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Daljit Singh on 30-5-1992 at 8.15 a.m. He found that the clothes were soaked with mud, face pale looking, tongue was swollen and was white in colour and bloodstained froth was seen in both nostrils and mouth. There was no mark of ligature seen around the neck. Both legs were soiled with mud up to midthigh and no mark of injury was seen on the body. Rigor mortis was present. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate while between death and postmortem 6 to 24 hours.
6. P.W. 4 ASI Kashmir Singh arrested the . appellant on 11-6-1992 and after completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 Harbhajan Singh, is the father of the deceased. P.W. 3 Piara Singh is the grandfather of the deceased. P.W. 2 Dr. Inder Mohan Singh conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Daljit Singh. P.W. 4 Kashmir Singh is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 5 Surinder Pal is the Patwari who prepared the site plan.
8. In the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. both the appellants pleaded that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated.
9. Mr. Sandhu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that in this case, FIR was not recorded at the time and place which is alleged to have been shown by the prosecution. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the statement of Harbhajan Singh, father of the deceased (P.W. 1) was recorded by ASI Kashmir Singh (P.W. 4).at. Canal Bridge, village Hakimpur, on 29-5-92 at 5.15 p.m. but P.W. 1 in his cross-examination before the learned trial Court, stated that he met the police at. the Canal Bridge, where he remained with them for about 5/10 minutes and reached the place of occurrence with the police at about 4 p.m. Again, in his cross-examination, he stated that the police came to the village from the place of occurrence at 5 p.m. Similarly, the other alleged eyewitnesses P.W. 3 Piara Singh, in his cross-examination, stated that the police left the spot at about 5 p.m. He further stated that P.W. 4 ASI Kashmir Singh who is the Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief stated that on-29-5-1992 at 4.45 P.M. Harbhajan Singh PW met him at the canal bridge and gave his statement Exhibit PA. The learned Counsel further submitted that after the death of the deceased, P.W. ! Harbhajan Singh had left the place of occurrence for PS Banga to lodge the FIR but according to him on the way at the Canal Bridge, village Hakimpur, ASI Kashmir Singh (PW 4) met him. He, however, submitted that P.W. 1, in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that the route from his village to Banga was through Sarhal Qazian, Malupota, Mazari and the distance is about 8 kms, but if one has to pass through Aujla, Bulowal, Hakimpur, the distance up to Hakimpur is 5 miles, and from Hakimpur, if one has to go to Banga, one has to travel a further distance of 5/6 miles. He, therefore, contended that it cannot be believed that P.W. I had gone to Banga Police Station taking circuitous route which was double the distance than the ordinary route.
10. The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has set up motive in this case to the effect that the cause of grudge on the part of the appellants was that the father of the complainant namely Piara Singh had taken 2½ kilas of land on mortgage from Piara Singh and prior to this also, there was some dispute between the accused and the complainant party which was got compromised and the appellants who are sons of Piara Singh, were annoyed with complainant party on the ground that the father of the deceased had taken the said land on mortgage from the father of the accused. He, however, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove this motive. In this connection, he referred to the statement of PW Harbhajan Singh, who in his cross-examination, has admitted that there was no money due on pronotes from the father of the accused and they had vacated the land 2/3 months earlier to the present occurrence. Similarly, P. W. 3 Piara Singh, in his cross-examination has also admitted that he had received the amount of the pronotes though he stated that the land had not been vacated by them. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that once the motive is set up by the prosecution, it must be proved and in case it is not proved, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656 : 1972 Cri LJ 473.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that both the alleged eyewitnesses, P.W. 1 Harbhajan Singh and P.W. 3 Piara Singh, who were closely related to the deceased, had been introduced by the prosecution though they had not witnessed the occurrence. He submitted that P.W. 1 Harbhajan Singh, in his statement, had stated that deceased Daljit Singh had helped them in loading the cart only but the other eyewitness Piara Singh had stated that the deceased helped them in unloading all the three carts.
12. The learned Counsel further submitted that P.W. 3, in his statement, recorded by the police had stated that when they started unloading the cart in their fields, they saw Pavittar Singh and Paramjit Singh grappling with the deceased but in his statement before the learned trial Court, he denied that he had stated so. The learned counsel also submitted that the inquest report was not prepared at the spot by the police but it was prepared in the hospital. In this connection, he referred to the cross examination of P.W. 1 wherein he stated that the police came to the village at the place of occurrence at 5 p.m. and the dead body was left behind at the place of occurrence and after it had gone dark, the dead body was removed from the place of occurrence in a tractor trolley and taken to the Civil Hospital, Nawanshahar.
13. The learned Counsel also submitted that even the ocular version as given by the eyewitnesses was contrary to the medical evidence. He submitted that P.W. 1 Harbhajan Singh, in his examination-in-chief, had stated that the dead body of Daljit Singh was not having any injury and even there was no mud on the deceased but P.W. 2 Dr. Inder Mohan Singh, in his statement stated that both the legs of the deceased were soiled with mud up to mid thigh.
14. Mr. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the occurrence happened in broad day light and it is not disputed that the complainant party and the accused were known to each other as they belong to the same village. He submitted that as per the case of the prosecution the occurrence happened at 3 p.m. After the occurrence, the complainant came to his house and informed the women folk about the occurrence and then he went to the house of Charan chowkidar and narrated the occurrence to him. He took Charan Chowkidar with him and proceeded to the Police Station Banga on bicycle. He submitted that possibly the circuitous route adopted by the complainant to go to the police station by bicycle was better than the other route. He further submitted that P.W. 4, ASI Kashmir Singh, in his statement, had clearly stated that PW met him at Canal Bridge village Hakimpur at about 4.45 p.m. and he recorded the statement of the complainant at 5.15 p.m. and the special report reached the place of the Haqa a Magistrate at Nawanshahar at 10 p.m. whereas the distance between the Police Station Banga and the residence of the Haqa a Magistrate is about 12 kms. He therefore, contended that there was no delay in recording the FIR or in delivering the special report at the place of the Haqa a Magistrate. He also submitted that P.W. 1 in his statement before the trial Court had inadvertently stated that he along with the police left the canal bridge and reached the spot at 4 p.m. on account of the lapse of time.
15. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of both the eyewitnesses P.W. Harbhajan Singh and P.W. 3 Piara Singh is consistent on the material facts. Both of them have clearly stated that the accused were annoyed on the ground that the father of the deceased had taken their land on mortgage regarding which a dispute had arisen but that was reconciled with the intervention of the Gram Panchayat. Both these witnesses have proved that they saw the accused grappling with the deceased at a distance of about 47 karams and when they were 1 ½ killa short of their tubewell, the accused were running away from the place where they were grappling with the deceased and the time was about 3 p.m.
16. The learned Counsel further submitted that P.W. 4 A.S.I. Kashmir Singh, in his statement, clearly stated that he went to the spot where the dead body of Daljit Singh was lying and he prepared the inquest report exhibit PC and then sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He submitted that the papers including the inquest report were delivered to the doctor at 30-5-1992 at 8.15 a.m. for conducting the post-mortem examination. He, therefore, contended that it cannot be said that the inquest report was prepared in the hospital.
17. As regards the motive, the learned Counsel submitted that in view of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, the motive pales into insignificance and was not relevant. He submitted that motive was not the sine qua non for conviction. In this connection, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai Sree. Kumar v. State of Kerala, 1981 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1981 Cri LJ 743 and a judgment of this Court in Chandan Singh v. State of Haryana 1993 (1) Rec Cri R 509.
18. As regards the cause of death, the learned Counsel submitted, that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was by way of drowning and both the legs were also found soiled with mud up to thigh. He submitted that P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief, had stated that the dead body of Daljit Singh was found lying at a distance of 3-4 karams from the tubewell. He, therefore, contended that there was no discrepancy between the ocular version and the medical evidence.
19. Mr. Dhir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant party, submitted that a young boy lost life at the age of 15/16 years because of the action of the appellants. He, therefore, contended that special compensation should be awarded to the parents of the deceased.
20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
In this case, the prosecution has set up the motive that the father of the accused persons had mortgaged 2½ killas of land to the father of the deceased and the accused were feeling annoyed as to why the father of Che deceased had taken their land on mortgage. From the evidence on record, we, however, find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the said motive. PW1 Harbhajan Singh, who is the father of the deceased, in his cross-examination, admitted that they had vacated the land of the father of the accused 2/3 months earlier to the present occurrence and there was no money due on pronotes from the father of the accused. Similarly PW 3, Piara Singh, who is the grand-father of the deceased, in his cross-examination, admitted that the father of the accused discharged his debt taken on pronotes near about Lohri of 1992. Thus, the motive set up by the prosecution has not been proved.
21. PW 1 Harbhajan Singh, who is the alleged eyewitness, in his statement before the Court, stated that on the day of occurrence at about 3 p.m. he and his father Piara Singh (PW 3) were carrying manure in rehri to their fields and when they were 8 killas short of their tubewell, they noticed that three persons were grappling with each other and when they were about 1½ A killa short of their tubewell, they noticed that Paramjit Singh and Pavitter Singh (appellants herein) were running away from the place where they were grappling with the deceased. He further-stated that he, his father Piara Singh and his, brother Joga Singh; rushed towards that place and found Daljit Singh lying dead at a distance of 3-4 kadams from their tubewell and at that time the dead body of Daljit Singh was not haying any injury and even there was no mud on the deceased. The aforesaid facts have been reiterated by the other alleged eyewitness, PW 3 Piara Singh, who is the father of PW 1 and grand-father of deceased Daljit Singh. These facts show that the deceased Daljit Singh died as a result of grappling by the appellants. We, however, find that the ocular version as given by the said two witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased, is contrary to the medical evidence. PW 2 Dr. Inder Mohan Singh, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Daljit Singh, in his statement, has stated that there was no mark of ligature even around the neck of the deceased, his both the legs were soiled with mud up to thigh and no mark of injury was seen on the body. He further stated that in his opinion, the cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to drowning, but no evidence whatsoever has been led by the prosecution that the appellants had caused the drowning of deceased Daljit Singh. The only evidence which has come on record against the appellants is that they were seen by PW 1 and PW 3, grappling with the deceased Daljit Singh. In view of these facts, the only conclusion which can be drawn from the evidence on record is that the death of the deceased was not caused by the appellants and as such the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained under Section 302, I.P.C.
22. The alleged two eye-witnesses PW 1 Harbhajan Singh and PW 3 Piara Singh, in their statements, stated that they had seen the appellants grappling with the deceased and when they raised noise, the appellants fled away from the spot and as a result of grappling, the deceased fell down but the appellants cannot be convicted even for grappling with the deceased as no injury was found on the body of the deceased by PW 2 Dr. Inder Mohan Singh, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. As per the evidence of PW 2, Dr. Inder Mohan Singh, there was no mark of ligature seen around the neck and there was no mark of injury on the body. He clearly stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature:
23. From the facts mentioned here inabove and from the evidence of the two alleged eyewitnesses, PW 1 Harbhajan Singh and PW 3 Piara Singh, a suspicion is created about their presence at the spot. PW 1 Harbhajan Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has staled that deceased Daljit Singh was found dead at a distance; of 3-4 karams from their tubewell and at that time, the dead body was not having any injury 4th(J even there was no mud on the deceased but PW 2 Dr. Inder Mohan Singh who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, in his statement, has stated that both the legs of the deceased were soiled with mud up to mid thigh. We find another discrepancy in the statement of PW 1 on a material point. PW 1, in his examination-in-chief, stated that after they found the dead body of deceased Daljit Singh, he along with the Chowkidar proceeded to Banga Police Station to lodge the FIR and on the way, he met ASI Kashmir Singh, (PW 4) at the canal bridge, Hakimpur, where his statement was recorded at 5.15 p.m. but in his cross-examination, he stated that he remained with the police at the Canal Bridge for about 5/10 minutes and then along with the police reached the place of occurrence at about 4 p.m. Similarly, the other alleged eyewitness, PW 3 Piara Singh, stated that the police after visiting the place of occurrence left at about 5 p.m. PW 4, ASI Kashmir Singh, who is the Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief stated that PW Harbhajan Singh met him at the Canal Bridge, Hakimpur, at 4.45 p.m. and gave his statement Ext. PA. Besides, as admitted by PW 1, in his cross-examination, he had gone to P.S. Banga by a circuitous route and in case he had gone by the shortest route, he would not have visited the Canal Bridge, Hakimpur. In view of the said discrepancies, the veracity of the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses PW 1 Harbhajan Singh and PW 3 Piara Singh, becomes doubtful and further the presence of these two eyewitnesses at the place of the occurrence also appears doubtful. It may be noted that here that both PW 1 Harbhajan Singh and PW 3 Piara Singh are closely related to the deceased and as such they are interested witnesses, and the Court has to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses carefully. In this connection, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in M. O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (1995) 3 JT (SC) 367 : 1995 AIR SCW 2717.
24, As regards the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that since in the present case, FIR was lodged promptly and there is no delay in delivering the special report at the place of the Haqa Magislrate, the statements of the two eyewitnesses PW 1 and PW 3 cannot be doubted, we find no merit in this contention. It is true that in the present case, the FIR was lodged promptly but as stated earlier, the ocular version as given by the alleged two eyewitnesses was totally contrary to the medical evidence. In the absence of any legal evidence on record, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. Besides, though the prosecution has set up the motive against the appellants the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged motive against the appellants.
25. For the reasons, recorded herein above, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellants under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Daljit Singh. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 10-1-1995 and acquit both the appellants.The appellants, who are on bail are discharged from their bail bonds. Since, we have acquitted the appellants, the revision petition filed by the complainant is dismissed.