Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. An incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the left lateral aspect of left forearm 5 cms away from injury No.3 and 2 cms away from the left wrist joint. Both the underlying bones were fractured."

Cause of death was due to the injuries to the vital organ brain and haemorrhage, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem examination was within 24 hours." PW5 Parampaul Singh is the second eye witness and stated that on 25.1.1995 at about 7.30 pm, he was near the house of Baldev Singh. Then Jagdev Singh was seen while closing the gate. There was electric light in the courtyard of Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh was going towards the gate of his house after alighting from Ambassador car. Iqbal Singh was also seen armed with 12 bore double barrel gun. He had fired a shot hitting Baldev Singh. On receipt of firearm injuries, Baldev Singh fell down on the ground. Then Iqbal Singh raised lalkara that Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur are not to be spared. Iqbal Singh then fired 2-3 shots. He along with Jagdev Singh to save their lives had fled away from the spot. After some time, number of people had gathered there. Then he and Jagdev Singh came back to the house of Baldev Singh. Dead bodies of Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were found lying in their house. He had narrated the above said incident to Albel Singh, complainant, who came at the spot after informing the police. Motive to murder Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur was that 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh also used to ill treat his son Iqbal Singh. Baldev Singh was an addict and was selling his land and due to this reason, Iqbal Singh murdered Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur.

Learned counsel for the respondent argued that dead bodies were recovered from the house of Baldev Singh (deceased). Respondent is the real son of Baldev Singh but the respondent had no motive to commit the crime. As per story, motive to commit the crime was that Baldev Singh had a dispute with his wife Gurdev Kaur. 15/20 years back, she was turned out of the matrimonial house. Baldev Singh was having illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Baldev Singh was an addict and was selling his land. He was treating the respondent like a servant. But no evidence on the file that the land was sold by Baldev Singh. 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of the house and if the respondent had a motive to commit the crime, then there was no idea to wait for about 15/20 years. Manjit Kaur (deceased) was married but after the death of her husband, she was residing with Baldev Singh. Manjit Kaur had litigation at Jalandhar but Parampaul Singh was not pursuing the litigation. Father of Baldev Singh was also murdered. No evidence on the file that Baldev Singh was treating the respondent like a servant. After post mortem examination, dead bodies were not collected by Parampaul Singh for cremation. When Baldev Singh (deceased) was having illicit relations with the sister of Parampaul Singh, then Parampaul Singh had a motive to commit the crime and name the respondent because one month earlier to the occurrence, respondent had a dispute with him (Parampaul Singh). Respondent gave beatings to him. Presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful. He was practicing at Rampuraphul. Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were staying with Baldev Singh. During working days when no ceremony was to be solemnized at Village Jabo Majra, then presence of Parampaul Singh at 7.30 pm in village Jabo Majra is doubtful. If Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then he should have signed the recovery memos, inquest reports. But no document was signed by Parampaul Singh either in the house of Baldev Singh (deceased) or in the hospital when post mortem examination was conducted. After the post mortem examination, dead bodies were not collected by Parampaul Singh for cremation. Albel Singh is the complainant but he did not support the prosecution story. The complainant did not state that after lodging the report when he came back at the house of Baldev Singh, then Parampaul Singh was found present there and had informed about the occurrence. Ex.PG/1 is the supplementary statement of Albel Singh. According to the supplementary statement, when Albel Singh came to the house of Baldev Singh after lodging the report, then Parampaul Singh and Jagdev Singh disclosed to him that Iqbal Singh is the murderer. Parampaul Singh as PW5 stated that he along with Jagdev Singh had witnessed the occurrence and this fact was disclosed to Albel Singh. Occurrence is dated 25.1.1995. In case, Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then his statement was to be recorded on 25.1.1995 but statement of Parampaul Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is dated 26.1.1995. ASI Nahar Singh was with the IO on 25.1.1995. In his presence, blood stained earth and empty cartridges were lifted from the spot but he did not state a word that after recording the statement of the complainant when the police party headed by SI Kirpal Singh came to the house of Baldev Singh, then Parampaul Singh was present there and his statement was recorded. SI Kirpal Singh as PW13 did not state a word that after recording the statement of the complainant when he along with other police officials had gone to the house of Baldev Singh, then Parampaul Singh was present there and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. If Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then the IO should have specifically stated that when he along with other police officials had gone to the house of Baldev Singh, then statement of Parampaul Singh was recorded. Statement of Parampaul Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not signed by him. Second eye witness, namely, Jagdev Singh did not support the prosecution story. Recovery of gandasa and gun was on 2.2.1995. Recovery was in the presence of Amarjit Singh but he was not examined. If recovery of gandasa was on 2.2.1995, then statement of Parampaul Singh is not correct one when he stated that gandasa was shown to him after two days. Maid servant and other servants were in the house at the time of occurrence but they were not examined. No one has appeared in Court to state that the crime was committed by the respondent. When appeal is against acquittal, then judgment is not to be set aside lightly on the allegation that there is a possibility of different view. Defence version of the respondent is that one month earlier to the occurrence, he had a dispute with Parampaul Singh. Respondent gave beatings to Parampaul Singh. Due to this reason, Parampaul Singh has deposed against the respondent. If the respondent failed to lead evidence in support of his defence version, then inculpatory part of the statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence but judgment of acquittal is to be set aside if the Court is of the opinion that the judgment is perverse and erroneous because the accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty.

Ex. PG is the statement of complainant Albel Singh. As per statement (Ex.PG), at about 7.30 pm, Albel Singh was present in his house. He heard sound of gun shots from the house of Baldev Singh. After that, the complainant had gone to the house of Baldev Singh and found the dead body of Baldev Singh lying at the entrance gate of the house. After that, the complainant along with Joginder Singh, Chowkidar, had gone to lodge a report. At 9.05 pm, statement (Ex.PG) of the complainant was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh but on the next day, supplementary statement of Albel Singh (Ex.PG/1) was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh. As per supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1), after lodging the report with the police, when Albel Singh along with Joginder Singh, Chowkidar, and police officials came to the house of Baldev Singh (deceased), then Jagdev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh (PW3) and Parampaul Singh son of Gurdial Singh (PW5) told that murder was by Iqbal Singh with the gun of Baldev Singh (deceased) and after murder, he had fled away from the spot. Motive to murder was that 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of the matrimonial house. Then Baldev Singh kept his aunt (mausi) Harbans Kaur and her daughter Manjit Kaur in his house. Baldev Singh developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. He was an addict. Land was sold by him. Due to this reason, Iqbal Singh has murdered Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur. According to the statement (Ex.PG) dated 25.1.1995 recorded at 9.05 pm, no eye witness. Albel Singh on hearing the sound of gun shots from the house of Baldev Singh had gone there and found the dead body of Baldev Singh lying in his house. But according to the supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) dated 26.1.1995, PW3 Jagdev Singh and PW5 Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence. As per Ex.PG, Parampaul was not present at the time of occurrence but when supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) of Albel Singh was recorded, then allegation of Albel Singh was that Jagdev Singh and Parampaul Singh told the police that they had witnessed the occurrence.

Albel Singh appeared as PW2 but he did not support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile. He stated that he is illiterate and his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers. Iqbal Singh was arrested on the next day. Albel Singh did not state a word that when his supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) was recorded, then Jagdev Singh and Parampaul Singh had told him or the police that they had witnessed the occurrence.

As per Ex.PG/1, occurrence was witnessed by Jagdev Singh and Parampaul Singh. Jagdev Singh appeared as PW3 but he failed to support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the learned PP for the State but nothing came out of the same which could help the prosecution. Statement of Jagdev Singh, one of the alleged eye witnesses, falsifies the prosecution story. As per Ex.PG/1, second eye witness is Parampaul Singh. Now the question is whether presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is natural or was introduced simply to strengthen the prosecution story.