Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is an appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are five appellants. They were tried by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307, 323, 324, 325 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act for causing the death of Kaka Singh, the deceased in the case. The trial court acquitted them. The State preferred an appeal against the said acquittal. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted each of them under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to undergo various other terms of imprisonment for other offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows: The deceased Kaka Singh and the principal witnesses P.Ws. 18 and 19 belong to Village Chao Majra, P.S. Mubarakpur. P.W. 22 Mastan Singh was the Sarpanch of the Village. There was enmity between P.W. 22 and the accused and his family members because of some civil disputes. On 2nd December, 1978, the day of occurrence, the deceased along with his brother Prem Singh, P.W. 19, his son Labh Singh, P.W. 18 and some other persons worked in the field of P.W. 22 the Sarpanch for remodelling the ridges of the potato crop till 5.15 p.m. and then came to the Village. All of them were sitting in the house of the deceased discussing about the next day operation. As they were conversing to each other, brickbats started falling in the courtyard of the house. The deceased climbed on the rooftop of his house to ascertain wherefrom the brickbats were coming. The other persons who were there also followed the deceased and went to the roof top. From the roof top the deceased, P.Ws 18, 19, 22 and one Joginder Singh saw all the five accused coming from the chobara of A-2 Gurdev Singh. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were armed with barchans while A-5 was armed with a lathi. Having reached the place where the deceased and others were standing, A-2 Gurdev Singh opened the attack by giving a blow with barchha on the left side of the chest of the deceased. The deceased fell down. Then A-1 Dharam Singh gave two barchha blows on the left abdominal region of the deceased. Then A-3 Sital Singh gave a barchha thrust on the left leg of the deceased. Thereafter he also twisted and fractured the same leg of the deceased. A-5 Bhag Singh gave a lathi blow on the wrist of the deceased. When Prem Singh, P.W. 19 stepped ahead to save his brother Kaka Singh, A-4 Ajmer Singh gave a barchha blow on his back. A-3 Sital Singh gave a barchha blow near the right elbow of P.W. 19 Prem Singh. On receipt of these injuries, P.W. 19 also fell on the ground. The other three persons, P.Ws. 18 and 22 and Joginder Singh raised alarm. Thereupon the accused left the place. The deceased and P.W. 19 were brought down from the roof top and they were taken to the hospital at Kharar in a truck. On reaching the hospital, P.W. 18 Labh Singh and P.W. 22 Mastan Singh, Sarpanch left for the Police Station and there P.W. 18 Labh Singh lodged a report at about 11 P.M. P.W. 25 the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the FIR and took up the investigation. As the deceased was not in a fit condition, P.W. 25 could not record his statement. He continued the investigations. Meanwhile the deceased was already referred to P.G.I. Hospital, Chandigarh. P.W. 5 Dr. T.S. Mohant examined the injured deceased and he found an incised would over the left side of the chest and decided the nature of treatment. Before that another Doctor, P.W.I 1 Dr. N.C. Dass Gupta examined the deceased at 9.30 P.M. and found five injuries. P.W.I 1 also examined P.W. 19 Prem Singh and found two incised wounds which were simple. The deceased, however, died on 8.12.78. P.W. 13 Dr. Inderjit Dewan conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and he found eleven injuries. Some of them are post operation wounds. Wound nos. 1 and 2 were on the abdomen. The third wound was on the left side of the chest going into pleural cavity. There was a lacerated would on right fore-arm. The seventh wound was on the abdomen going into peritoneal cavity. The next wound was a lacerated wound on the right leg with a fracture underneath. He opined that the cause of death was septicemia which was caused due to consolidation of the left lung as a result of penetrating stab injury and penetrating stab injuries to the abdomen. The accused were arrested and some recoveries were effected. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. A-1 Dharam Singh was working as an Officer in the Public Works Department, Irrigation Branch at Chandigarh and he pleaded alibi stating that at the time of occurrence he was at the place of his posting namely at Chandigarh. In support of his alibi he examined D.Ws 1, 2 and 4. Likewise, A-2 Gurdev Singh claimed that he was working at Patiala and on the day of occurrence he was at Patiala. But he has not examined any witness in support of his plea. The other accused pleaded not guilty.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W. 22 was highly inimical towards the accused and at his instance after due consultations the FIR was lodged and the contents of the report intrinsically reveal that it was a fabricated document done in a clever manner. P.W. 19 Prem Singh was injured and he was examined after a week and he simply has fallen in line with the version already set up by the interested witnesses. His further submission has been that the trial court has considered the entire evidence carefully and has given very sound reasons for not acting upon the same and the trial court had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and therefore its views are entitled to greater weight and the appellate court ought not to have reversed the order of acquittal even if another view was possible. The further submission has been that the alibi set up by Dharam Singh, A-1 is fully established by the evidence of D.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and that he has been falsely implicated. This very false implication by the witnesses renders their evidence tainted and merits no acceptance. Likewise A-2 Gurdev Singh was admittedly a Government servant at Patiala which is about 40 miles away and he would not have been present at the scene- of occurrence. At any rate his presence at the scene of occurrence is highly improbable.

5. This is brief is the evidence of these three cyc-witnesses. We have carefully gone through their evidence. As pointed out by learned defence counsel, the version given by these three witnesses regarding the occurrence is verbatim the same. Learned counsel took pains to take us through the evidence of P.W. 25 the investigating officer and also the contents of the FIR in support of his submission that the earlier report was he studied upto matric. He admitted that A-2 Gurdev Singh was employed in the Punjab Irrigation Department at Patiala and A-1 Dharam Singh was similarly employed in the same department as a draftsman in Chandigarh but he admitted that he saw both of them for the first time at 7 P.M. on the day of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that both of them were not in the village. P.W. 18 also admitted that the distance between his village and Patiala may be 40/45 miles and Chandigarh is only 10 miles from the village. He further admitted that he was studying on the day of occurrence but he had taken leave from his school by submitting an application. He also admitted that it took one hour for recording the FIR. P.W. 19 Prem Singh is the brother of the deceased. He gave aversion which is verbatim the same as that of P.W.I 8 in his chief-examination. He, however, further stated that A-1 and A-2 forcibly and unauthorisedly dug a water channel in the land of the deceased and himself and that the former gave a report against the accused. Thereafter a panchayat was held and compromise was brought about. He further admitted that even now the channel dug unauthorisedly is still there and is being used by A-1 and A-2. In the cross-examination he admitted that none of them received any injury due to the throwing of brickbats. Some contradictions and omissions also have been brought about in his cross-examination. He was only examined by the police one week later. We find that the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of these two witnesses arc identical. P.W. 22 Mastan Singh is another eye-witness and is the Sarpanch of the Village. His version is also verbatim the same as that of the other two witnesses regarding the occurrence. He deposed that they removed result of consultations and the version was brought into existence after ascertaining the nature of injuries on the deceased and P.W. 19 after they were admitted into the hospital. P.W. 25 in his chief examination stated that P.Ws 18 and 22 came to the police station and recording of the FIR was concluded by 11.50 P.M. Thereafter they went to Kharar hospital. He wanted to record the statement of P.W. 19 and wanted a certificate from the doctor to the effect that he was not in a fit condition to make the statement. He further stated that he also went to P.G.I., Chandigarh for ascertaining if the deceased has improved in his condition as to.make a statement but the doctor told him that he was not in a condition to make the statement. He came to know about the death of the deceased on 8.12.78 only at 4 P.M. In the cross-examination he admitted that he sent a special report of the occurrence. The trial court has very carefully examined the question of delay in making the report in a detailed manner. Admittedly P.W. 18 Labh Singh and P.W. 22 Mastan Singh went to the hospital alongwith the injured for getting them medical treatment. Thereafter they covered a distance of nearly 40 miles and reached the police station. According to the defence the FIR was recorded in the following morning at about 8 A.M. and the same has been ante-timed. The trial court held that this submission is not wholly devoid of force in view of the entries made in the DDR. In this context it may also be noted that the distance between Kharar and the place of occurrence admittedly is only 8 or 9 miles. Further there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the statement of P.W. 22 throughout at the hospital as well as at police station was not recorded. Therefore there is any amount of doubt as to the time with regard to the lodging of the FIR. With this background we shall examine the contents of the FIR. The relevant portion of the FIR given by P.W. 18 reads as under:

8. A-2 Gurdev Singh who is no other than the brother of A-1 Dharam Singh also pleaded alibi. Admittedly he is also an employee of the Punjab Irrigation Department at Patiala. Having pleaded not guilty he further stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of P.W. 22 and Joginder Singh who were hostile to him and to the members of his family. A-2 further stated that he was on duty at Patiala from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and even after office hours he remained at Patiala only and during the subsequent days also he had been attending to his duties. No doubt he has not examined any witness in support of his alibi but P.W. 25 the Investigating Officer admitted that he has verified the office records which show that both A-1 and A-2 attended their offices on 2.12.78. It therefore emerges that A-2 was at Patiala and attended his office at least till 5 P.M. and Patiala is about 40 miles away from the scene of occurrence. In such a situation his presence at the scene of occurrence at about 7 P.M. becomes highly doubtful. This circumstance also renders the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses unreliable.