Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -1- .... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. …. Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 Decided on: 27 February, 2008. Satpal Singh … Appellant Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present:- Mrs. A.P.S. Deol, Sr.Advocate with Mr. H.S.Ghumman, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. … S.D. ANAND, J. Appellant Satpal Singh (alongwith three others) was tried on a charge of having murdered Gurtej Singh. Those other than the appellant earned a verdict of acquittal. However, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The prosecution allegations, as presented before and upheld at the Trial qua appellant Satpal Singh, were as under:- On the relevant day, at about 8.00 AM, first informant Bhagwan Singh (PW2), accompanied by his daughter-in-law Nasib Kaur and his grandson Gurtej Singh went over to a flour mill for getting the Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -2- .... wheat grinded. The trio carried the wheat to the flour mill, running under the name and style of Mistrian Di Machine, oxen-driver on a cart. When they were in the process of unloading the grain, the appellant ( and his acquitted associates) appeared on the scene. The appellant was carrying a Gandasa and so also were his acquitted co-accused Resham Singh and Nar Singh, while Avtar Singh (also an acquitted accused) was carrying a 12 bore licenced gun. Avtar Singh raised a Lalkara that Gurtej Singh should be killed there and then. Immediately after the exhortation aforementioned Avtar Singh aimed his gun at Gurtej Singh. Resham Singh felled Gurtej Singh on the ground by giving a Gandasa blow on his neck. Accused Nar Singh gave a Gandasa blow on the face of Gurtej Singh. The appellant and his acquitted associates also gave injuries to Gurtej Singh on different parts of his body. Nasib Kaur raised a Raula and proceeded forward to save Gurtej Singh who, however, died at the spot. The appellant (and his acquitted associates) fled the spot, taking along their respective weapons of offence. About four years prior to the impugned occurrence, appellant Satpal Singh had caused injuries to Naib Singh, son of first informant Bhagwan Singh, who was facing a prosecution under Section 326 IPC in that regard. Thereafter, Chamkaur Singh, a real brother of the appellant was murdered by the complainant party. Both the parties were also bound down in the proceedings under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was on account of proven enmity that Gurtej Singh was done to death by the appellant. The prosecution allegations were testified on oath by PW 1 Nasib Kaur and PW2 Bhagwan Singh. PW 3 Inspector Des Raj (then Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -3- .... posted at P.S. Rampura) had partly investigated this case, PW 5 Balbir Singh being the main Investigating Officer of the case. PW 4 Dr. Raj Kumar had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurtej Singh and had found the following injuries on it. “1. Incised wound 14 cm x 6 cm elliptical in shape present on the head in left front to parietal region chopping of layers of scalp, bones dura matter etc. exposing the brain substance. Dark clotted blood was present, single cut in the turban was also present. 2. Incised wound 20 cm x 8 cms elliptical in shape was present on the face between nose and lips starting in front of right ear going across the front of left ear transversely placed cutting the structures in between including mandible and going right upto base of skull. Margins retracted, dark clotted blood was present. 3. Incised wound 7 cm x 4 cms elliptical in shape was present in front of neck, over the larynx cutting the structures including thyroid cartilages. Dark clotted blood was present in trachea. 4. Incised wound 5 cms x 2 cms bone deep present on the chin transversely placed underlying bone was fractured.” Dr. Raj Kumar opined, in view of the above finding, that the death had occurred as a result of injuries No.1 and 2 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -4- .... opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and had been caused by sharp edged weapon. Appellant Satpal Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence in the following manner, with the following averment:- “I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated on account of previous litigation between the complainant party. It is a case of blind murder which took place on the night of Jan. 11/12 and the dead body was discovered in the morning whereafter the FIR was fabricated at the spot after due deliberation and concoction after procuring the presence of the eye witnesses. I was arrested on the next day of occurrence and arrest was falsely shown on 16.1.1990 after fabricating evidence of blood stained gandasa.” No evidence was adduced by the appellant in defence. Mr. A. P.S. Deol, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, raises the following point while criticising the impugned finding of conviction. (i) There was no immediate motive for appellant Satpal Singh to commit the crime for which he stands convicted. The murder of a member of the accused party by a member of the complainant party had been committed a number of years ago and it will be unnatural to expect that the appellant wanted to avenge that murder. We are not impressed with the advocated plea. The parties have a long history of inter se enmity. Gurcharan Singh, husband of PW 1 Nasib Kaur, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -5- .... having committed the murder of Chamkaur Singh, real brother of appellant Satpal Singh. Those convicted along with Gurcharan Singh included his brother Ghuddar Singh and three other close relations of his. In appeal, Gurcharan Singh earned acquittal; while the conviction of others was maintained and they are incarcerating in jail. Further, appellant Satpal Singh, his brother Chamkaur Singh and Nazar Singh son of Munshi Singh were challaned for causing injuries to Naib Singh aforementioned. In that case, Naib Singh and Bhagwan Singh PWs had appeared as eye-witnesses of that occurrence. They were acquitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul but an appeal against acquittal is pending in this Court. Acquitted accused Avtar Singh had appeared as a prosecution witness against Gurcharan Singh and others in the case pertaining to the murder of Chamkaur Singh. Prior to the murder of Chamkaur Singh and his brother, Gurcharan Singh, his father Bhagwan Singh, his brother Ghuddar Singh and one Mukhtiar Singh were prosecuted for having caused injuries to Jugraj Singh. By the very nature of things, motive is a double edged weapon. Be that as it may, the facts narrated above take the wind out of the sails of the appellant in the context of the plea raised that the appellant had no motive to commit the crime for which he stands convicted. The mere fact that the enmity started with the commission of an occurrence a number of years ago is not a good ground to discard the proved motive because that occurrence was followed up by acts of inter- se enmity by the parties to the present prosecution till immediately before the impugned occurrence. Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -6- .... It is, then, argued that the presence of PW1 Nasib Kaur and PW 2 Bhagwan Singh at the spot is doubtful in view of the fact that they are not even averred to have endeavoured to protect Gurtej Singh. A person circumstanced like Nasib Kaur and Bhagwan Singh, the argument proceeds, would have taken all steps to protect Gurtej Singh. The plea does not merit acceptance. As per the prosecution allegations, the members of the complainant party were not carrying any fire arm or other weapon at the time of the impugned occurrence. As against it, appellant Satpal Singh was armed with a Gandasa. In the face of the proven enmity between the parties, the appellant is proved to have been determined to accomplish the job any way. The members of the complainant party could legitimately be said to have been under a fear psychosis. Even otherwise, a such like incident would end up within a noticeably short period. Both of them (i.e. Bhagwan Singh aged 60-65 years and Nasib Kaur) were empty handed. There was hardly anything practically speaking which they could have done in the context because the appellant and his acquitted associate did what they had to and evaporated from the scene immediately thereafter. The plea raised in the context shall stand negatived accordingly. The learned counsel for the appellant, then, finds fault with the conduct of PW2 Bhagwan Singh who informed the Court that he went over to the Police Station partly on foot and partly by a Tonga but that he did not converse with the other passengers in the Tonga about the impugned occurrence and that he also did not intimate the occurrence to the parents of the deceased or anybody else including his sons in the village. Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -7- .... We have not been able to persuade ourselves to find any force in the plea. PW 2 Bhagwan Singh was an old man who had lost his male grand child. The episode must have left him too numb to react. Further, he clarified that the Tonga by which he travelled did not belong to his village and that one/two passengers travelling in the Tonga were also not of his village. There was, thus, nothing unnatural if Bhagwan Singh did not talk about the murder of Gurtej Singh with them. There is also nothing, per se, unnatural about his not having informed the parents of the deceased or any of his sons before going to the police. Bhagwan Singh was cognizant of the fact that his grandson had been done away. A broken man, he was more interested in going over to the police to notify the offence. We do not find any fault with his attitude in the relevant behalf. As apparent from the record, PW1 Nasib Kaur and PW 2 Bhagwan Singh whose testimony is the main stay of the prosecution version, stood the test of cross-examination very well. We do not find that the appellant had been able to prove any chinks in their testimony in spite of the fact that a fairly lengthy cross-examination is proved to have been directed at them. Apart there from, the injuries found by Dr. Raj Kumar on the person of the deceased exactly correspond to the ocular presentation at the trial. It can safely be culled out from the above discussion that the ocular presentation is in complete accord with the medical finding. Dr. Raj Kumar PW 4 opined in the Court itself that “I have seen Gandasa Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -8- .... Ex.P1 today in court and in my opinion the possibility of causing the injuries with this Gandasa cannot be ruled out.” The appellant has not been able to point out that there was any inordinate or unexplained delay in notifying the crime to the police. As arch rivals, the members of the complainant party would be quite naturally interested in ensuring that the real culprit is brought to book. That feeling in the mind of people with that history of animosity would be quite natural. It also requires particular notice that there is adequate evidence on the file to prove that it is appellant Satpal Singh who, in pursuance of a disclosure statement, led to the recovery of the weapon of offence. The mere fact that no independent witness was joined in the party to attest the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery cannot be said to be sufficient to invalidate the evidence in the relevant behalf particularly when the disclosure statement and also the recovery memo were attested by Gurdit Singh Chowkidar, who is a village functionary. There is no averment that Gurdit Singh Chowkidar had any inimical inclinations vis-à-vis the appellant or there was any other reasons on account of which he would have been inclined to settle the score with the appellant. It is interesting to find that the plea of innocence raised on behalf of the appellant is falsified by none else or other than DW1 Bikar Singh, a witness examined by the appellant himself. He stated the factum of the impugned occurrence but averred that appellant Sat Pal Singh was not present over there. Qua the latter part, he does not deserve to be relied upon inasmuch as he does not even remember day Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -9- .... or month in which the impugned occurrence had taken place. It is in his own testimony that Gurtej Singh was already standing in front of the floor mill when this witness reached there and that appellant Satpal Singh came there after two minutes of the arrival of the witness. He has, thus, tried to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It is obvious from a perusal of his testimony that his testimony does not fully exculpate appellant Satpal Singh. We find, on appraisal of the file in its relatability to the pleas advocated on behalf of the appellant, that the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Judge in support of the impugned finding of indictment against the appellant, is appropriate and does not call for any interference. The appeal stands dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE February 27,2008. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE sn Crl. Appeal No.75-DB of 1999 -10- ....