Daljit Singh Alias Jit Singh Alias Bhola and Another Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 ..... Date of decision:16.11.2012 Daljit Singh alias Jit Singh alias Bhola and another ...Appellants v. State of Punjab ...Respondent .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh ..... Present: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... Inderjit Singh, J.This appeal has been filed by appellants-Daljit Singh alias Jit Singh alias Bhola and Jagtar Singh sons of Ram Singh against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby they have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). Appellant-Daljit Singh has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [2]. under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant-Jagtar Singh has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC. However, accused-Dheeraj Kaur has been acquitted of the charges for which she was facing trial. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR was registered on the statement of Bhan Singh-complainant which was got recorded to Inspector Harmeet Singh, SHO, Police Station, Khamanot on 31.3.2006 at about 10.15 p.m. As per the statement of Bhan Singh- complainant on 31.3.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., when he reached his house after doing his work as rickshaw puller, he heard the cries of his sister Sukhwinder Kaur from the courtyard where his brother was being given beating. Jagtar Singh son of Ram Singh was armed with a `Kirch', his brother Jit Singh alias Bhola was armed with a `Takua' and Dheeraj Kaur wife of Jagtar Singh was also giving kick blow to Jagtar Singh son of Sajjan Singh. In the presence of complainant, Jagtar Singh son of Ram Singh gave `Kirch' blow in left side of stomach and back of complainant's brother Jagtar Singh. Jit Singh gave `Takua' blow in left side upper part of elbow and both knee. Dheeraj Kaur also gave kick blows to his brother while he was lying on the ground. The complainant and his sister Sukhwinder Kaur raised Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [3]. alarm and the accused fled away along with their respective weapons. After that his brother Jagtar Singh became unconscious due to bleeding. In the meantime, father of the complainant also reached there. After arranging a vehicle, Jagtar Singh was being taken to Civil Hospital, Khamanot by the complainant, his father Sajjan Singh and his sister but he died in front of the gate of the Civil Hospital, Khamanon. The motive behind the occurrence was that about 8/9 years back, the accused had caused injuries to complainant's father Sajjan Singh and a compromise was effected with the intervention of Panchayat. Due to this enmity, the accused gave injuries to Jagtar Singh brother of Bhan Singh. When the complainant along with his cousin Jagmohan Singh was going to inform the Police, the Police party met them in the way and his statement was recorded. After recording the statement of the complainant, `Ruqa' was sent to Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Then the Investigating Officer reached at Civil Hospital, Khamanot where the dead body of Jagtar Singh was lying. He inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.PW.8/A and recorded the statements under Section 175 Cr.P.C. and sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana for post-mortem examination. On 1.4.2006, he reached at the spot and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW.8/C and recorded the statements of witnesses. He also recorded supplementary statement of Bhan Singh-complainant. He lifted blood stained earth from the spot and after preparing sealed parcel taken into Police possession. Thereafter, the investigation of this case was handed over to SI Sewa Singh. On 3.4.2006, Surjit Singh, Numberdar produced accused Daljit Singh before Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [4]. SI Sewa Singh, Investigating Officer, who was arrested and was interrogated. He made disclosure statement regarding kept concealing one `Kirch'. His disclosure statement Ex.PW.10/A was recorded. In pursuance of his disclosure statement a `Kirch' was recovered from the disclosed place, which was taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. After necessary investigation, challan was presented. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charge against accused-appellant Daljit Singh alias Jit Singh alias Bholla, framed charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC. On an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., accused Dheeraj Kaur and appellant-Jagtar Singh were summoned to face trial along with Daljit Singh and framed charge against them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Bhan Singh-complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version with the only change that Daljit Singh was armed with `Kirch' and Jagtar Singh was armed with `Takua' and Daljit Singh gave `Kirch' blow to his brother Jagtar Singh (since deceased). He also deposed that his supplementary statement was also recorded on the next day i.e. on 1.4.2006. PW-2 Sukhwinder Kaur is the sister of the complainant and the deceased and is eye witness in the present case. She deposed as per prosecution version and stated that Daljit Singh gave `Kirch' blow to Jagtar Singh. Jagtar Singh son of Ram Singh accused gave `Takua' blow on the left elbow of her brother Jagtar Singh son of Sajjan Singh (deceased). PW-3 HC Jatinderpal Singh and PW-5 HC Deep Singh are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [5]. Ex.PW.3/A and Ex.PW.5/A respectively. PW-4 Dr. Harsimran Singh, Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem along with Dr. Kuldip Singh, mainly deposed regarding conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jagtar Singh and found the following injuries:-

“1. Stab wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm front of left side of chest 2 cm from mid line 7.5 cm from left nipple horizontally placed with clotted blood. On dissection wound goes backward laterally and slightly downward cutting all underlying structures and entering right ventricle with clotted blood present all through the wound and pericardium full of blood.

2. Stab wound 2 cm x .6 cm on left flank of abdomen in mid- axillary line obliquely placed 15 cm above level of left anterior superior iliac spine with clotted blood. On dissection wound goes backwards, downward and medially cutting all underlying structures and entering intestine with ecchymosis and clotted blood in intestine and through out track.

3. Stab wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm over left iliac fossa 8 cm from mid line and 6 cm from left anterior superior iliac spine going backward laterally and upward cutting underlying structure and entering intestine with clotted blood and ecchymosis all over and in the intestine.

4. Stab wound on right side of back 1 cm right from mid line and 15 cm above levels of anterior superior iliac spine measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm with clotted blood which was bone Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [6]. deep with clotted blood.

5. 4 abrasions with reddish discolouration over back of left elbow starting from above downward measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm x ½ cm, 2 cm x 1½ cm and 1 cm x ½ cm.

6. 3 abrasions over left patella which were reddish measuring 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 1 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm.

7. Lacerated wound 1 cm x ½ cm over interior aspect of right patella x bone deep with clotted blood.”

. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in the present case was injury to vital organ i.e. heart i.e. injury No.1 which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor also stated that all the injuries described were ante-mortem in nature. PW-6 Sadhu Singh, Draftsman mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PW.6/A. PW-7 Constable Balbir Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW.7/A. PW-8 Inspector Harmeet Singh deposed regarding the initial investigation of the case. PW-9 Dr. Nirvair Singh deposed that Jagtar Singh son of Sajjan Singh was dead when brought to hospital at 8.30 p.m. on 31.3.2006. He sent intimation to SHO, Police Station, Khamanot vide `Ruqa' Ex.PW.9/A. PW- 10 SI Sewa Singh was member of the Police party on 31.3.2006 and investigation of this case was handed over to him by Inspector Harmeet Singh on 3.4.2006. He deposed regarding the statement of complainant and sending the dead body for post-mortem. He also stated that on 3.4.2006, Surjit Singh, Numberdar produced the accused before him and also deposed regarding disclosure statement and recovery of `Kirch' got effected by Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [7]. accused Daljit Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement. PW-11 ASI Nirmal Singh was also member of the Police party and deposed as per investigation of the present case. The Public Prosecutor tendered into evidence report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PX and closed the prosecution evidence. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused-Daljit Singh deposed that Jagtar Singh (since deceased) entered in their residential house situated nearby the house of deceased with bad intention to commit rape on his sister-in-law Dheeraj Kaur and on her raising alarm, he ran away from the spot. He asked him as to why he had entered in their house and he said in a taunting manner that on that day Dheeraj Kaur had been escaped and on next opportunity he must commit rape on her. On seeing this, Jagtar Singh (deceased) pulled `Kirch' which he had hidden under his shirt and tried to assault on him with the `Kirch'. He escaped himself and snatched `Kirch' from him and gave two/three blows on the person of said Jagtar Singh and he fell down. Later on he came to knot that he had expired after some time. He did not cause any injury with the intention to commit murder and all this happened due to above mentioned facts and circumstances and he had given blows of `Kirch' to said Jagtar Singh in his self-defence. Had he not given blows of `Kirch', Jagtar Singh must have killed him with the `Kirch' which he was having with him at that time. He deposed that he is innocent person. Accused Jagtar Singh and Dheeraj Kaur also stated the same facts. They deposed that they were even not present at the alleged place of occurrence. They are Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [8]. innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Jagtar Singh deposed that after hearing from his wife about the incident, he along with his father Ram Singh went to Police Station, Khamanot to lodge report against deceased Jagtar Singh and his DDR was got written in the Police Station. When he and his father were coming back and reached near their village, they came to knot that Jagtar Singh son of Sajjan Singh had expired. A false case against them had been registered regarding the murder of Jagtar Singh and they are innocent and had not caused any injury to deceased Jagtar Singh. In defence, they examined DW-1 Surjit Singh alias Jeetu who mainly deposed that on 31.3.2006, Jagtar Singh accused was working with him as a labourer. Gurdial Singh was a Mason. Wife of Jagtar Singh accused, namely, Dheeraj Kaur came to his residence at about 3.00-4.00 p.m. She told to her husband that she was attacked by Jagtar Singh (deceased) while coming to her house. After giving information to Jagtar Singh, Dheeraj Kaur went back. Jagtar Singh called his father Ram Singh through one person and on his arrival they both went to Police Station, Khamanot on bicycles. At 7.30 p.m. Ram Singh and Jagtar Singh again came to his house. He deposed that Jagtar Singh and Dheeraj Kaur were not present. DW-2 Gurdial Singh, Mason also deposed the same facts. From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above and acquitted accused-Dheeraj Kaur of the charges. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the present case accused Jagtar Singh is innocent and was not Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [9]. present on the spot and has been falsely implicated in this case which fact is duly proved by both the DWs. He also argued that appellant-Daljit Singh gave the injuries to the deceased in private defence. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the statement of PW-1 is contradictory to the FIR which is the first version and creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. He also contended that Jagtar Singh died due to cancer and the appellants have been falsely implicated. He argued that the appellants should be acquitted accordingly. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the eye witnesses have deposed consistently regarding the prosecution version which is supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. `Kirch' which was got recovered by Daljit Singh was blood stained and as per FSL report it was stained with human blood which also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The defence version that Jagtar Singh died due to cancer is not supported and corroborated by any evidence. As per defence witnesses, appellant-Jagtar Singh was not present at the spot also cannot be believed as both the DWs have deposed that appellant-Jagtar Singh along with his father had gone from their place and they returned at 7.30 p.m., whereas the occurrence is stated to be of 7.00 p.m. As regards the discrepancy that statement of Bhan Singh-complainant is contradictory to FIR version, she argued that a supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant on the very next day i.e. 1.4.2006 and the witness has not been confronted with any of his statement and his explanation was not sought, therefore, she argued that not the statement of PW-1 Bhan Singh Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [10]. cannot be challenged on this ground. She argued that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. From the record, we find no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. First of all the occurrence is admitted by appellant-Daljit Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that he had given blows of `Kirch' to Jagtar Singh in his self- defence. There is no evidence on record regarding this private defence produced by appellant-Daljit Singh. There is also no suggestion to the witnesses that Daljit Singh only caused the injuries in self-defence. This defence has been taken in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C first time. Again no DW has been produced to support this defence version. There is also no evidence on the record to show that Jagtar Singh (deceased) was armed with `Kirch' or he assaulted Daljit Singh-appellant. As already discussed, even no such suggestion was put to the witness. Again the suggestion to the PWs that Jagtar Singh died due to cancer also cannot be believed in view of the medical evidence on record. There are four stab wounds, one lacerated wound and abrasions on the dead body of Jagtar Singh found at the time of post-mortem examination as deposed by PW-4 Dr. Harsimran Singh. The doctor has given the cause of death in this case injuries to vital organ i.e. injury No.1 to heart which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Further we find that the version given by DWs also in no way proves the innocence of either of the accused not proves that Jagtar Singh-appellant cannot be present at the Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [11]. time of occurrence. DW-1 Surjit Singh and DW-2 Gurdial Singh both have deposed that Dheeraj Kaur came to the house of Surjit Singh where Jagtar Singh-appellant was doing labour work as house of Surjit Singh was being constructed. As per them, Jagtar Singh along with his father Ram Singh went away on bicycles and they came back at 7.30 p.m. The occurrence is of about 7.00 p.m. which means that Jagtar Singh was not present with Surjit Singh or Gurdial Singh at the relevant time. Therefore, in no way it can be held that Jagtar Singh was not present in the village at the time of occurrence and had been falsely implicated in this case. There is no cogent evidence on the record to show innocence of the appellants in the present case. As regards the contradiction in the statement of Bhan Singh with the FIR, we find that PW-1 has stated that he has given the supplementary statement on the next day i.e. 1.4.2006 in which he corrected himself. This witness PW-1 has not been confronted with the FIR, therefore, he was not given any opportunity to explain that how the contradiction came in the FIR and no benefit of doubt can be given to the accused only on this ground. Again the statement of Sukhwinder Kaur PW- 2, who is another eye witness, has deposed as per prosecution version. She has not made any material improvements not there is any contradiction in her statement. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that both the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. They are truthful witnesses. Their presence on the spot is natural one. The oral statements of the PWs are duly supported by medical evidence and further by the recovery of `Kirch' from appellant-Daljit Singh in pursuance of his Cr. Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 [12]. disclosure statement which was stained with human blood. Further the statement of appellant-Daljit Singh while recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding causing injuries with `Kirch' to Jagtar Singh (deceased) further supports and corroborates the prosecution version that the injuries were given with `Kirch' by Daljit Singh. Though his version regarding private defence etc. is not proved from any evidence. Therefore, from the above discussion, we find that the prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence. The witnesses are the truthful witnesses. There is nothing in cross-examination which may make their statements unreliable. They are trustworthy witnesses and relying on the testimony of eye witnesses and the medical evidence and other evidence, we hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. In view of above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge November 16, 2012. *hsp*