Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The prosecution case, in brief, was that an F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Jagdev Singh (deceased), the brother of deceased Harbans Singh on 25.8.1990. That Jagdev Singh, Harbans Singh and Sadhu Singh were brothers. While Harbans Singh and Jagdev Singh lived in the same house, Sadhu Singh lived in a separate house. Sadhu Singh and Jagdev Singh had licenced .12 bore guns. They purchased about 15 marlas of land on which accused Bikkar Singh and others had heaped their manure. On 24.8.1990 a village Panchayat was convened for getting the land vacated. In the said Panchayat meeting it was decided that they should vacate the land after getting it demarcated by the Patwari. On 25.8.1990 at about 9.30 A.M. Harbans Singh (deceased) and complainant Jagdev Singh were present in their house when respondent  Hakam Singh armed with a .303 bore rifle while other accused - Mander Singh and Nachhatar Singh @ Pamma each armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun along with other assailants  Darshan Singh armed with a .315 bore rifle and Bhola Singh armed with a .12 bore single barrel gun entered their house raising 'lalkara' (shouting). Bhola Singh immediately on reaching there, fired a shot and abused them saying , "come out, we will deliver you the possession of the place of manure heaps". Harbans Singh rushed into the house and brought a licenced gun of the complainant, Jagdev Singh. Respondent- Hakam Singh then fired a shot with his .303 bore rifle at Harbans Singh which hit his left buttock and pierced through his groins. In that injured condition, Harbans Singh fired a shot with his gun in self defence which hit Bhola Singh. On hearing the noise of the fire shots, other brother Sadhu Singh came out of his house. Accused Darshan Singh fired a shot with his .315 bore rifle at Sadhu Singh which hit him on his right arm. Sadhu Singh ran away from there and entered in his house and thereafter scaling his wall and entered into the house of Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh came out from his house and ran towards the street. One of the assailants namely Darshan Singh fired a shot with his.315 bore gun at Mohinder Singh which hit on his back. The accused persons kept on firing shots with their respective guns. Jagdev Singh witnessed the entire incident from the roof of his house clandestinely. It is alleged that on hearing the alarm, P.W.5- Baldev Singh ( son of Mohinder Singh, deceased) and others reached there to save them Mohinder Singh and Bhola Singh died at the spot. Jagdev Singh sent his brothers, Sadhu Singh and Harbans Singh to the Civil Hospital, Bhatinda in a tractor trolley along with his sister-in-law, Malkiat Kaur and Harbans Kaur. Jagdev Singh went to the Police- station and lodged the report which was recorded by the S.H.O.- Satwant Singh (P.W.7). The said report was treated as the formal F.I.R. and special report was sent to the Judicial Magistrate on the same day at 8.00 p.m. Though originally Nachhatar Singh was not one of the accused but after the examination of Jagdev Singh, the complainant, accused Nachhatar Singh @ Pamma was also put on trial. But Jagdev Singh died subsequently and therefore, his evidence could not be recorded in the Court. Darshan Singh was declared as a proclaimed offender. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and put their version of the incident.

The prosecution in its support examined number of witnesses but primarily, the star witness was P.W.1, Dr.Gupta, P.W.2 Dr.Malik and P.W.3- Harbans Kaur the wife of the deceased Harbans Singh. Sadhu Singh, the injured eye witness as P.W.4, Baldev Singh (P.W.5), son of Mohinder Singh, Sub-Inspector- Satwant Singh, S.H.O. as P.W.7 was the Investigating Officer. Though Jagdev Singh was also one of the witnesses on whose complaint the F.I.R. was registered but he died before the trial and as such his statement could not be recorded. Prosecution examined other formal witnesses also.

In order to appreciate the prosecution case we shall examine the statement of P.W.3- Harbans Kaur, the wife of the deceased Harbans Singh who unfolded the whole drama as it happened in her house. In fact, we are primarily concerned in the present appeal against acquittal of Hakam Singh only.

P.W.3- Harbans Kaur has deposed that on the fateful day at about 9.30 A.M. when her husband, Harbans Singh the deceased and his brother Jagdev Singh were present in their house at that time Darshan Singh , Bhola Singh (deceased), Nachhatar Singh @ Pamma Singh, Mander Singh and Hakam Singh came in front of their house and all of them entered inside the outer gate of the house. Hakam Singh and Darshan Singh had rifles while the remaining accused were armed with 12 bore guns. It is alleged that at the time of entering into their house Darsan Singh and Bhola Singh started raising 'Lalkar' saying that they would teach them a lesson for taking possession of the plot of Bikker Singh. First of all Bhola Singh fired a shot from his gun. That shot was aimed at them i.e. her and her husband but it did not hit. Meanwhile, her husband, Harbans Singh picked up the licensed gun of his younger brother Jagdev Singh from inside the house. Her husband Harbans Singh stepped forward up to a distance of 5/7 Karams towards the side of the accused with the licensed gun of Jagdev Singh but Hakam Singh aimed the gun towards her husband. Thereafter, her husband-Harbans Singh retraced his steps and took a turn, but respondent Hakam Singh fired a shot from his gun hitting on the back side of the buttock of her husband, Harbans Singh. Then Harbans Singh fired two shots from the licensed gun of Jagdev Singh in self-defence. One shot hit on the flank and the other on the head of Bhola Singh. The accused party then started taking care of their companion Bhola Singh who was injured. Thereafter, she put a jaffa around her husband, Harbans Singh and took him inside the baithak for his safety and bolted the door from inside. Thereafter, it is alleged that multiple shots were fired but she did not open the door. After some time accused persons left that place. Thereafter Jagdev Singh came down and knocked the door and on recognizing his voice she opened the door. Jagdev Singh left the house to find out the welfare of Sadhu Singh who is the brother of the deceased, Harbans Singh and he came to know that Sadhu Singh has also received injuries. Thereafter a tractor trolley was brought and Harbans Singh was placed in injured condition inside the tractor trolley along with Sadhu Singh and they took them to the hospital. Jagdev Singh went to the Police-station to lodged the F.I.R. Meanwhile, Harbans Singh died on the way. This is the long and short story of P.W.3, Harbans Kaur an eye witness who has seen the death of her husband and she unsuccessfully tried to save her husband. Her testimony has been put to a very close cross-examination and during the cross-examination she was confronted with her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Attempt was made to discredit her testimony as to the fire arms used by the respondent i.e. whether the gun from which the respondent fired was a .303 bore rifle or a 12 bore double barrel gun and the manner of firing in which Bhola Singh received two injuries; one from the gun and the other from the rifle and that whether the deceased Harbans Singh was competent to fire the shot and that her blood stained clothes were not recovered by the Police, in order to discredit her testimony. After closely going through the statement of P.W.3 we are of the opinion that P.W.3 is a truthful witness and unsuccessful attempt of the defence to confront her with different types of fire arms i.e. whether it was a rifle or it was a gun shot injury fired through 12 bore gun or .303 rifle; all this cross- examination was directed against this rustic villager in order to discredit her testimony. This is most unrealistic approach. We fail to appreciate how can a rustic village lady would explain about bore of gun or rifle. P.W.3 whose presence in the house was quite natural and she having clearly identified the respondent who fired the gun at her husband should be enough to establish the factum of whole prosecution story. To expect from her to give the description in a photogenic manner is asking too much. The High Court instead of entering into split hairing the testimony of this witness with regard to the fire arms used in the occurrence should have concentrated more on the hard truth of the matter instead of finding fault with her testimony. We fail to understand the manner in which the testimony of this witness has been appreciated by the High Court. Sometimes while appreciating the testimony of rustic villagers we are liable to commit mistake by loosing sight of their rural background and try to appreciate testimony from our rational angle. When a lady is confronted with number of intruder in her house armed with deadly weapons and showering bullets she can not give a very accurate and photogenic version as whole thing happened in a few minutes. Therefore, while appreciating such testimony Court should give due regard to their rural background and the whole scenario in which the incident happened. She has narrated the whole incident as it happened and also stated that her husband also fired and that shot killed Bhola Singh.That lends considerable support to the testimony of this witness. She was only witness at the occurrence and she has stated what has happened in her house and none was there except Jagdev Singh who had escaped for his life by going out of the house but unfortunately he died. An attempt was made to discredit her testimony with regard to the second injury caused to deceased Bhola Singh. It is contended that Bhola Singh received two gun shot injuries; one is gun shot injury and the other is a shot from the rifle. How can she account for rifle injury when there was firing spree was going on and other assailants were armed with guns and rifle. She has categorically stated that her husband fired two shots from the licensed gun of Jagdev Singh in self defence, one shot hit on the flank and the other hit on the head of Bhola Singh, but the attempt made by the defence to discredit her testimony on the score of second injury received by deceased Bhola Singh is of no avail. If she really wanted to give a wrong version of incident she could have totally exonerated her husband . But she has categorically stated that the shot fired by her husband from the gun hit Bhola Singh. Whether both the shots fired by her husband hit Bhola Singh or one, she cannot depose in such a photogenic manner. But she admitted that one of the shots hit Bhola Singh when there was exchange of fire from the accused side. She had categorically deposed that Hakam Singh fired a shot from the rifle hitting on the back side of the buttock of her deceased husband, Harbans Singh. Attempt was also made to discredit her testimony with regard to the medical evidence that when the deceased sustained the injuries from a fire arm from the rifle of Hakam Singh he could not have fired shots from the gun and the Police did not recover the blood from the place of incident and the blood-stained clothes of P.W.3 were also not collected by the Police.

It was also contended the copy of F.I.R. reached Magistrate late. It is true it was belated one but this alone is not enough in the present case to be fatal.

P.W.4 - Sadhu Singh was injured witness. He has deposed that the whole incident took place in the house of deceased Harbans Singh. He heard the sound of firearm, he came out of his house and he saw all the accused persons and when accused person saw him, Darshan Singh fired two shots immediately. One of the shots hit him on his right arm but some how he managed to enter his house and bolted from inside. Then he climbed down to the house of Mohinder Singh with the help of his wife. So far as the testimony of P.W.4 is concerned, it stands fully corroborated that these accused persons were firing at the house of his brothers, Harbans Singh and Jagdev Singh and when he came out to find out the cause, he also fell victim to these accused persons. He has only witnessed the incident to the extent of shots being fired by the accused persons He could not see what happened inside the house Therefore, he corroborates the testimony of P.W.3  Harbans Kaur to this extent. Therefore, so far as the testimony of P.W. 3 is concerned, she is truthful witness. She is wholly reliable witness and there is no reason to disbelieve her.