In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 ....Date of decision:18.2.2013 Kiranpal ...Appellant v.
State of Punjab Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Narinder Singh Swaitch, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.....Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellant-Kiranpal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of `Ruqa' sent by ASI Surjit Singh of Police Station City, Moga-II at 10.45 p.m.on 15.1.2006.
It is stated in the `Ruqa' that on 15.1.2006, ASI Surjit Singh along with Head Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [2].Constable Salwant Singh, HC Paramjit Singh, Constable Satnam Singh, Constable Devinder Singh and PHG Gurdeep Singh was going on Government Gypsy bearing registration not PB-08L-2290 driven by PHG Baldev Singh in connection with patrolling towards Beant Nagar.
When the Police party reached at the turning of street No.7, Beant Nagar at about 10.00 p.m., they heard a voice of firing of shot.
ASI Surjit Singh along with Police party went towards street No.7.
Street light was on.
When they went 50 yards ahead of street, then from the left side of the house, three persons ran out, out of whom he knew one person Kiranpal Singh son of Girwar Singh, caste Rajput resident of Beant Nagar, Moga, whose left hand was bleeding.
It was also written in the `Ruqa' that ASI knew Kiranpal as some time earlier Kiranpal was owner of said house from which these persons ran away.
Small rooms of that house were being given on rent and they used to come to check the tenants on patrolling.
The Police party tried to chase the accused but they ran away on account of darkness.
It was also written that ASI Surjit Singh could identify the other persons on identification parade.
Then the ASI along with the Police party conducted the search of the house.
A dead body of young man was lying in the second room.
A fire shot was caused under left armpit.
The dead person was identified as Manot Kumar son of Mithai Lal.
Kiranpal accused son of Girwar Singh along with his two companion had murdered Manot Kumar by fire shot.
On the basis of this `Ruqa', FIR was registered at 11.00 p.m.on 15.1.2006.
Special report was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga at 12.45 a.m.on 16.1.2006.
On the same day at midnight SI Dev Raj reached the place of occurrence and took over the investigation of this case.
He prepared the Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [3].inquest report Ex.P.4.
He recorded the statements of the witnesses.
From the place of occurrence, one barrel which was buRs.from its back side, was taken into Police possession from the spot after preparing sealed parcel vide memo Ex.P.11.
One live round was also lifted from the spot and taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel.
Blood was also lifted from the spot which was put in a bottle and taken into Police possession after preparing a sealed parcel.
The dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Moga for post-mortem.
The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared.
Statements of witnesses were recorded.
The Investigating Officer went to Civil Hospital, Moga as the accused, who was also injured, was admitted there.
Kiranpal was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot.
Then the Investigating Officer went to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot and the opinion of the doctor was sought whether the injury was caused in an accident or it was fire arm injury.
The accused was joined in the investigation and was interrogated.
On discharge of Kiranpal from the hospital, he was arrested by ASI Bachan Singh and produced before Sub Inspector Varinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, City, Moga-II on 28.1.2006.
After necessary investigation, the challan was presented.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellant Kiranpal, framed charge for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty to above charge and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Rajesh Attri, Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [4].the dead body of Manot Kumar on 16.1.2006 at 12.45 p.m.and found the following injuries:-
“1. Lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins on the left mid axillary line 13 cms from left nipple.
Blackening was present.
Tattooing was also present.
2) Raised skin bluish colour 1.5 cm x .5 cm on the right mid clavicular line 6 cm below and medial to right nipple and was 4 cm from midline.
On curt: Another metallic body yellowish in colour was found beneath the raised skin.
On dissection, injury No.1 was going forward slightly upward to the right side and after puncturing ribcage, left lung and heart and right lung and emerged as injury No.2 mentioned.
Chest cavity was full of blood.
Yellowish colour metallic body cylindrical found in left side of the jacket (dark blue).Rigour mortis was present.
Post- mortem staining was present.”
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injury which was caused to vital organ i.e.lungs and heart which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary couRs.of nature.
All injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
Time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post- mortem examination was 12 to 24 houRs.The doctor also deposed that after post-mortem examination, he handed over the dead body along with its belonging, copy of post-mortem report, inquest papers and two yellow Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [5].colour metallic body in a small Jar with five seals.
PW-2 Vijay Kumar stated that he knew Kiranpal for the four or five months prior to the occurrence.
He (Vijay Kumar) rented out some of the rooms to various persons but no such room was rented out to Kiranpal.
This witness had not supported the prosecution version and was turned hostile.
PW-3 Gursewak Singh, Draftsman mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.P.5.
PW-4 ASI Bachan Singh mainly deposed regarding arrest of accused-Kiranpal on 28.1.2006.
PW-5 ASI Surjit Singh mainly deposed regarding sending of `Ruqa' and his initial investigation.
PW-6 HC Paramjit Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P.11.
PW-7 Dr.
D.S.Bhullar mainly deposed regarding medico-legal examination of Kiranpal on 16.1.2006 and found the following injuries on his person:- “1.
Lacerated wound shaped as in MLR 6 x 6 cm with muscle mass crushed and visible with clotted blood.
A irregular margins on palm of left hand on thenar eminence.
Skin overlying lost.
Treatment X-ray on bed head side showing evidence of fracture of Ist metacarpal bone of thumb.
Medico legal X-ray was advised.”
2. Evidence of thermal burn with loss of skin 2 x 0.5 cm on lateral aspect middle part index finger left hand.”
3. Abraded contusion 5 x 0.5 cm with red scab on right side of forehead.
Above lateral end of right eye brow.
X-ray and observation was advised.”
4. Contusion 0.5 x 0.2 cm red 1 cm below and anterior to Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [6].injury No.3.
Nature of injuries was to be given after receiving and observing X-ray report and Bed Head Record.”
He also deposed that evidence of crush due to bursting of some weapon and burns at margins were declared in respect of injury No.1.
Injury No.2 was burn injury, injuries No.3 and 4 were caused by blunt weapon.
On 25.1.2006, on receipt of the medico-legal X-ray report, injury No.1 was declared as grievous.
PW-8 SI Varinder Singh, SHO mainly deposed regarding partly investigating the case.
PW-9 SI Dev Raj also deposed regarding the investigation of the case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent.
He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case as he was friend of the deceased.
Some unknown persons fired upon him in his presence and he tried to save the deceased.
In defence, the accused-appellant did not produce any evidence.
After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Kiranpal as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the present case no motive has been proved by the prosecution for causing the occurrence.
The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Some unknown persons have caused injuries Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [7].to Manot Kumar as well as to accused-appellant Kiranpal.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that no independent witness was examined in the present case which also creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
He argued that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that case of the prosecution has been duly proved by ASI Surjit Singh.
ASI Surjit Singh has no enmity or motive against the accused-appellant and there is nothing on record why he will depose falsely against him.
He further argued that the case of the prosecution is supported and corroborated by the statement of Dr.
D.S.Bhullar, who medico-legally examined appellant Kiranpal, who had received burn injuries due to bursting of weapon on his hand.
The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that in the case of direct evidence motive looses its significance and on this ground no doubt exist in the prosecution case.
Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the Police official ASI Surjit Singh and other Investigating Officer have no enmity or motive against the appellant, therefore, there was no necessity to examine any other independent witness and non-examination of other witnesses does not create any doubt.
He further argued that to prove motive is not important in the present case as ASI Surjit Singh, who was on patrol duty and other Police officials, had seen the appellant running away with his hand bleeding from the spot at night time.
He argued that there is no merit in this appeal and the same should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [8].Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the evidence on record, we find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
In the present case, ASI Surjit Singh along with other Police officials was on patrol duty and on hearing the noise of firing of shot, he reached the spot.
Appellant Kiranpal along with two other persons was running away from the spot.
There is no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR as `Ruqa’ was immediately sent by ASI Surjit Singh and the name of appellant was mentioned in the `Ruqa’.
It is also mentioned in the `Ruqa’ that ASI Surjit Singh was knowing Kiranpal as he earlier met him.
There is no delay in recording the FIR and further the special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 12.45 a.m.that is at the earliest.
Otherwise also, there is nothing in the evidence on record that the Police official has any enmity or motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
No suggestion of any type has been given alleging any enmity or motive of Police officials against the appellant Kiranpal.
Even the suggestion put to the witnesses and also the plea taken in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.the appellant admitted his presence at the spot and also receiving of injuries at the time of occurrence.
Dr.
D.S.Bhullar (PW-7) has medico-legally examined the appellant and found injury No.1 due to bursting of some weapon.
Injury No.2 was also burn injury.
Therefore, this statement of PW-7 further supports and corroborates the prosecution version and points towards the guilt of the appellant only and none-else.
Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [9].As regards the motive in the present case, ASI Surjit Singh has seen the appellant running away from the spot with his hand bleeding.
Sometime it is difficult to specifically prove the motive and it is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.
Motive is always in the mind of the accused who commits the crime and it is difficult to prove motive by bringing direct evidence.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the FIR was lodged by ASI Surjit Singh, who was on patrol duty, motive looses its significance and on this ground no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.
Further witness ASI Surjit Singh is not a related witness not can be stated to be an interested witness in this case.
He is an independent person.
No enmity or motive has been alleged against him.
He has consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version.
There are no material contradictions or improvements in his version.
There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which may make his statement unreliable.
He is a truthful, trustworthy and reliable witness.
The statement of ASI Surjit Singh is further duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and further from the fact that the appellant received injuries in his hand due to bursting of weapon.
A piece of barrel was also taken from the spot which further supports and corroborates the prosecution version.
Keeping in view the above discussion, we find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence against the appellant.
Resultantly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order or sentence passed by the learned trial Court is upheld.
Cr.
Appeal not D-729-DB of 2008 [10].There being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge February 18, 2013.
*hsp*