Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 Date of decision :

07. 12.2012 Jasbir Singh ....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Ritu Punj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Jasbir Singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 11.08.2008 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC. FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Smt.Daljit Kaur wife of deceased. She stated to the police that house of Shingara Singh, elder brother of her husband, Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [2]. adjoins to their house and family of Shingara Singh used to quarrel with them. On 13.01.2008, Shingara Singh had abused them at night. On 14.01.2008, from her parental house, her brothers Jaswant Singh and Nihal Singh and son of her aunt namely Balwant Singh came to compromise both of their families at Mamdot. Then Shingara Singh and his sons Jasbir Singh and Kulbir Singh had inflicted injuries to her brothers Jaswant Singh and Nihal Singh to whom they had got admitted in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur for treatment. Due to the serious injury on the head of her brother Nihal Singh, he was shifted to Adesh Hospital, Mukatsar for treatment. On 15.01.2008, she and her husband Avtar Singh had to go to Adesh Hospital, Mukatsar to inquire the health of her brother Nihal Singh. Her husband Avtar Singh hired a Maruti car from Taxi Stand, Mamdot and came in the street at about 6:00 p.m. to go to Mukatsar and he was sitting on the back seat of the car. When the complainant reached near the car after taking clothes from her house then Jasbir Singh @ Jassa son of Shingara Singh came near the car with kirpan by running from the main side of the street and took out the kirpan from sheath and after opening the door of the car gave continuously many blows from the pointed end of the kirpan directly to her husband, who was sitting on the back seat of the car. Complainant and the car driver Jaswinder Singh raised hue and cry then Jasbir Singh @ Jassa fled away with his 'kirpan' from the spot towards village side. Avtar Singh succumbed to injuries on the seat of the Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [3]. car. The complainant also stated that the cause of grudge is that Shingara Singh and his wife Kulwant Kaur had caused injuries to her in the year 2001 and last year Shingara Singh and his two sons Kulbir Singh and Jasbir Singh had fractured the legs of her husband by causing injuries. They had registered the case against them in this regard. A few days ago, they were convicted for 6/6 months in the case of causing injuries to her and the other case is still pending in the Court. After leaving her father-in-law Surain Singh and car driver Jaswinder Singh to guard the dead body of her husband, when complainant alongwith her brother-in-law Surjit Singh was going to report the matter at Police Station, Mamdot, the police party met at Mai Bholi Chowk and statement of Daljit Kaur was recorded by Sub Inspector Gurvinderjit Singh (Investigating Officer), SHO, Police Station Mamdot, at 7:30 p.m. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thereafter, Investigating Officer alongwith ASI Jagdish Lal and some other police officials visited the spot and took into possession sheath of sword which was lying near the car where the dead body of Avtar Singh was lying. Blood was lifted from the rear seat of Maruti car with the help of cotton and the same after converting into sealed parcel was taken into police possession. Photographs were taken. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 21.01.2008 accused Jasbir Singh was arrested and on interrogation he suffered Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [4]. disclosure statement regarding concealing of sword in the dry fodder near the defence Ban and then the accused got recovered the same in pursuance of his disclosure statement. The sword which was stained with blood was taken into police possession after preparing a separate sealed parcel. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court. On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dr.Boby Gulati, Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Avtar Singh on 16.01.2008 at 10:00 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:- 1. An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side of the neck in the middle. On dissection underlying muscles were cut and infiltrated with blood. Subcutaneous tissues were infiltrated with blood. Trachea was punctured and contained blood.

2. An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the front and right side of chest, 1 cm below the nipple. Subcutaneous tissues and muscles were infiltrated with blood. Right lung punctured. Thoracic cavity full of Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [5]. blood.

3. An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm on the lateral side of chest, right side 10 cm from the right nipple and 3 cm below it, underlying subcutaneous tissues and muscles infiltrated with blood. Liver was punctured and abdominal cavity of full of blood.

4. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm in the right axilla, underlying tissues and muscles cut and infiltrated with blood.

5. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the anterior aspect of right lower leg in the middle half, underlying bone was intact.

6. Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the lateral side of right shoulder muscles and subcutaneous tissues were cut and infiltrated with blood.

7. Three incised wounds 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm each on the right elbow, lateral aspect of right fore arm and lateral aspect of right upper arm. Muscles and tissues infiltrated with blood and cut.

8. Three incised wounds 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the dorsum of right hand 2 cm apart underlying tissues infiltrated with blood.

9. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the lateral side of left side of chest, 8 cm from the left nipple, subcutaneous Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [6]. tissues and muscles were cut and infiltrated with blood. Left lung and heart punctured. Thoracic cavity full of blood on the left side. Heart was empty. 10.Three incised wounds 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the left arm. Medial side of fore arm and lower 1/3rd of the lateral side of upper arm and medial side of upper arm and the middle underlying bones were intact. The cause of death in this case in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock, haemorrhage and injury to vital organs. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours. PW2 Krishan Lal Sondhi, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.P5. PW3 Constable Rajesh Kumar, Photographer, mainly deposed regarding photographs MO-1 to MO-10 and negatives MO- 11 to MO-15. PW4 Head Constable Balwinder Singh mainly deposed that he was deputed by the Investigating Officer for getting the postmortem conducted on the dead body of Avtar Singh. He also sworn his affidavit Ex.P7. PW5 Constable Surinder Singh is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P8. PW6 Ravinder Singh, Registration Clerk, Office of DTO, Ferozepur, mainly deposed that as per record car bearing registration not DAQ-5478 was transferred in the name of Jaswinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [7]. Singh. Earlier Janak 7Raj was the registered owner. PW7 ASI Jagdish Lal, who was with SI/SHO Gurinderjit Singh, also deposed regarding the investigation of the case. He stated in cross- examination that statement of complainant was started at 6:00 p.m. and police completed the same at 7:30 p.m. PW8 Sub Inspector Gurinder Jit Singh is the Investigating Officer who deposed regarding the investigation of the case. PW9 Head Constable Joginder Singh and PW10 Head Constable Chanan Singh are the formal witnesses who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.P24 and P25 respectively. PW11 Daljit Kaur is the complainant and eye witness in this case. She deposed as per prosecution version. Public Prosecutor after tendering into evidence Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P26 and giving up PW Jaswinder Singh as having been won over by the accused on the written request of complainant, closed the prosecution evidence. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to old animosity of their family with the complainant party. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Jaswinder Singh who mainly deposed that on 15.01.2008 Avtar Singh came to Taxi Stand, Mamdot and hired his car bearing registration not DAQ-5478 Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [8]. for going to Adesh Hospital, Muktsar and disclosed to him that his wife Daljit Kaur has gone to aforesaid hospital in order to look after her brother who was admitted there having sustained injuries. He has to collect some clothes from his house and one or two other persons are to accompany him. At about 6:00 p.m., he alongwith Avtar Singh reached in Muralian Wali street in the aforesaid car. At that time, there was darkness being winter. At that time, two persons while armed with swords came there and after opening both the rear doors of the car started causing injuries with their respective swords from both the sides. Daljit Kaur, wife of deceased Avtar Singh, was not present at the time of occurrence. He also deposed that when he raised hue and cry, neighbours attracted to the spot and then the assailants fled away from the spot. After about 15 minutes, police arrived there. Daljit Kaur arrived at the spot at about 7:00/7:15 p.m. Accused was not from those assailants. He also stated that his statement was not recorded by the police in connection with the murder of Avtar Singh. DW2 Kamlesh Kumar Joshi, Addl. Ahlmad, in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge III, Ferozepur, deposed regarding the case titled as State vs. Kulbir Singh and others in case FIR No.10 dated 16.01.2008 under Sections 308, 323/34 IPC, Police Station Mamdot. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [9]. appellant contended that complainant PW11 Daljit Kaur was not present at the spot and she has not seen the occurrence. She was called lateron as deposed by the defence witness Jaswinder Singh (DW1). He further contended that the case of the prosecution is also not supported by Jaswinder Singh, driver of the car, who has appeared as DW1, therefore, defence version looks more probable and creates doubt in the prosecution version. He next contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity between the families. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the accused was shown arrested in this case on 21.01.2008 whereas, the arrest memo Ex.D3 shows that this accused has been arrested on 20.01.2008 in another case which also creates doubt in the prosecution version. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant should be acquitted accordingly. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contended that there is no cogent evidence on the record to show that Daljit Kaur, complainant (PW11) was not present at the spot. Daljit Kaur has made the statement on oath. The occurrence took place at 6:00 p.m. and after recording her statement ruqa was sent at 7:30 p.m. and the police official has stated that the complainant met the police party at about 6:00/6:30 p.m. If Daljit Kaur, complainant (PW11) was at Mukatsar then in no way she can reach the place of occurrence within such a short time. Learned Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [10]. Addl. Advocate General, Punjab further contended that Jaswinder Singh, driver, has been given up on the written request of complainant being won over by the accused and he has appeared as DW1, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. He has denied that his statement has not been recorded by the police, though he visited the police station 2-3 times. He has also admitted his signatures on memo Ex.P18 in cross-examination which shows that he had participated in the investigation and not he has resiled from the statement given to the police and that is why he was given up and has appeared as defence witness. She further contended that there is no reason or ground to falsely implicate the accused and to leave the actual culprit. As regards the arrest of accused, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, contended that no question was asked to the Investigating Officer regarding the arrest of the accused. Only Investigating Officer could have explained on this point. She contended that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, the present appeal having no merit should be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. We find no merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. As regarding the first argument that Daljit Kaur (PW11), Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [11]. complainant and eye witness to the occurrence, was not present on the spot. We find that there is no cogent evidence on record to doubt her presence on the spot. The defence version that she had gone to Mukatsar to inquire about the health of her brother is not supported and corroborated by any evidence. Occurrence took place at about 6:00 p.m. even as per statement of DW1 Jaswinder Singh, driver, who was admittedly present with his car at the place of occurrence. The statement of complainant Daljit Kaur (PW11) and the police proceedings were completed at 7:30 p.m. as per the record which means that the complainant reached the police for reporting the matter just within half an hour. It is not possible for the complainant to come from Mukatsar to Mamdot within half an hour and to report the matter to the police official. Otherwise also, we have perused the statement of Daljit Kaur, complainant (PW11) very cautiously and carefully. She has seen the occurrence and has consistently deposed as per prosecution version. There is no material contradiction or material improvement in her statement which may make her statement unreliable. She is a truthful and trustworthy witness and her statement can be safely relied upon. There is no dispute regarding the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and mode of causing murder. Even DW1 Jaswinder Singh admitted that Avtar Singh came to him to hire the taxi to go to Adesh Hospital, Mukatsar and at 6:00 p.m. he reached alongwith Avtar Singh (deceased) in the street. DW1 Jaswinder Singh also stated that one Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [12]. or two persons were to go to Mukatsar with Avtar Singh. The fact that injuries were given with 'kirpan' when the deceased was sitting on the back seat of the car is also admitted by DW1 Jaswinder Singh. He has resiled on two material points firstly that Daljit Kaur (PW11) was present at the place of occurrence and secondly that accused Jasbir Singh had given the injuries rather as per him two persons had given the injuries. The statement of DW1 Jaswinder Singh cannot be believed. He has been given up by the Public Prosecutor on the written request of the complainant being won over by the accused. DW1 Jaswinder Singh has nowhere given the description of those two persons that who they were or whether he was knowing them or not. He has not deposed that he can identify those two persons. Secondly, his statement that Avtar Singh (deceased) told him that his wife had already gone to Adesh Hospital, Mukatsar to inquire about the injuries of her brother looks unnatural. There is nothing on the record that DW1 Jaswinder Singh was very close to Avtar Singh, therefore, it looks unnatural that Avtar Singh told all these facts unnecessarily to DW1 Jaswinder Singh, while he was the taxi driver. Further, we find that Jaswinder Singh (DW1) had taken part in the investigation and his statement was also recorded before the police. Even he has admitted his signatures on memo Ex.P18 but he has not made any complaint or representation to the higher authorities regarding false implication of the accused. He appeared as a defence witness suo-motu without summons. This Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [13]. conduct also shows that he has been won over by the accused. Further the facts deposed by DW1 Jaswinder Singh are not put by the defence counsel to Daljit Kaur, complainant (PW11), therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, no reliance can be placed on the defence version. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the arrest of accused, we find that no question was asked to the Investigating Officer how the accused was arrested in this case on 21.01.2008. Only Investigating Officer can explain regarding the arrest of accused. Otherwise also, even if the accused was arrested on 20.01.2008 in another case as per arrest memo Ex.D-3, there is no evidence on record that when the accused has been released on bail in that case and how he was arrested on 21.01.2008. There is every possibility that if the accused was arrested in another case on 20.01.2008 he might have been released on bail by the police etc. Therefore, on this ground also, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. There is motive for causing the injuries there being enmity. Earlier also accused and his family members have caused injuries to the brothers and husband of complainant. There is no delay in recording the FIR. There is only single accused. There is no reason or ground to falsely implicate the accused and to let off the actual culprit. Otherwise also, if Daljit Kaur, complainant (PW11) is to falsely implicate, she can easily implicate brother of the accused also in this case as the Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 [14]. injuries were on both right and left side of the body of Avtar Singh but she has not made any attempt to falsely implicate any person in the present case. Daljit Kaur, complainant (PW11) has given the explanation that how one or two injuries on right side were caused on the person of Avtar Singh. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that the statement of eye witness Daljit Kaur (PW11) is fully supported and corroborated by medical evidence. The recovery of blood stained 'Kirpan' by the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement, further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory report that 'kirpan' was stained with human blood also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The recovery of sheath of 'kirpan' and car, having the dead body of Avtar Singh on the back seat, from the spot further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 07 12.2012 mamta