Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: July 23, 2010 STATE OF PUNJAB ...APPELLANT VERSUS GURDEEP SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. PRESENT: MS. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. MR. P.S. BRAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. MS. SUKHPREET KAUR, ADVOCATE MR. A.S. KALRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. This judgement shall dispose of Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 filed by the State of Punjab and Crl.R. No.270 of 2003, filed by the wife of deceased Varinder Singh, as both these cases arise out of common impugned judgement. The State of Punjab has filed this appeal impugning the judgement dated 12.02.2002, passed by Addl.Sessions Judge(Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Faridkot vide which respondent-Gurdeep Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC framed against him. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Darshan Singh, Inspector (PW14) alongwith other Police officials was present near the Railway crossing, Moga for patrolling purpose, where a medical ruqa No.249 dated 12.3.1998, (Ex.PV), with regard to bringing of Varinder Sngh with multiple injuries and his death at 8.50 p.m., was received through Major Singh, Class IV of Civil Hospital, Moga. Thereupon Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -2- Inspector Darshan Singh alongwith other police officials reached Civil Hospital, Moga where Maninder Singh (PW1) brother of the deceased Varinder Singh met them and got recorded his statement at 10.30 P.M. to the effect that his younger Varinder Singh (deceased) was working as Ahlmad in the the Court for the last about 9/10 years and was posted in the Court of Sh.Bal Kishan Mehta, Civil Judge, Moga. He was living separately alongwith his family in a rented accommodation at Basti Alipur, Amritsar Road, Moga. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 12.3.1998, he had gone to meet his brother at his house. There his wife Narinderpal Kaur informed him that Varinder Singh had still not returned from the Court. Therefore, on account of non-coming of Varinder Singh at home, he and his sister-in-law Narinderpal Kaur went to the Courts complex, Moga to enquire about him. When at about 7.45 P.M. they both entered from the road in the Court, where electric lights were on, they saw Gurdeep Singh (respondent), quarrelling with Varinder Singh. Respondent Gurdeep Singh was arguing with Varinder as to why they did not leave the office in time as he had to close the doors. Thereupon, Varinder told that due to inspection, they were maintaining the record. Reacting thereupon, Gurdeep Singh told Varinder Singh that he was torturing him and feeling weary asked him to go to his house so that after closing the doors of the Court he could take his meal in time. On this, Varinder Singh impressed upon Gurdeep Singh that he was on duty and was not showing any courtesy. On this, Gurdeep Singh became infuriated and gave a kirch blow, which was tied to his waist, to Varinder Singh in his chest. Maninder Singh and Narinderpal Kaur raised noise 'na maar-na maar' and within their sight, Gurdeep Singh gave kirch blows to Varinder in his left flank, forehead, left arm and left shoulder. In Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -3- the meantime, Maninder Singh intervened and rescued Varinder Singh. Narinderpal Kaur also raised an alarm. Then Gurdeep Singh ran away from the spot alongwith kirch. In the meantime, Makhan Singh who was posted as Steno in the Court and was working with Varinder Singh also came there. After arranging a jeep, Varinder Singh was shifted to Civil Hospital, Moga, but after some time Varinder died. The statement of Maninder Singh(Ex.PA) was reduced into writing and on the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR (Ex.PA/2) under Section 302 IPC was registered against Gurdeep Singh by SHO Balwant Singh. Inquest report(Ex.PN) was prepared. Thereafter, the spot was inspected by Inspector Darshan Singh (PW14). Blood stained earth from the place of occurrence was lifted and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PB). Rough site plan (Ex.PO) of the place of occurrence was prepared. Vide Ex.PK, post mortem on the dead body of Varinder Singh was got conducted and the clothes of the deceased (Ex.P1 to P-4) were also taken into possession after making the same to sealed parcels. On 14.3.1998, while patrolling, respondent-accused Gurdeep Singh was arrested by Inspector Darshan Singh (PW14) on kacha Zira road, Moga and was interrogated. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a blood stained kirch near his quarter under the Bohar tree and could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement (Ex.PR) was reduced into writing. Thereafter the accused led the Police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the blood stained kirch (Ex.P5) which was taken into possession after making Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -4- the same into a sealed parcel. After completing the formalities, challan was filed against the accused-respondent and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against respondent-Gurdeep Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. PW11 Dr. Ramesh Sharma, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Moga, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Varinder Singh found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- “1. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm on left side of the forehead 2 cm from midline, oblique in direction starting 2 cm in front of anterior hairline and ending 1 cm above eye brow. The underlying frontal bone was fractured at upper end of the wound. Frontal lobe of brain was lacerated and cranial cavity contained clotted blood. 2. Punctured incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right side of chest, 1 cm from midline and 11.5 cm from right nipple, horizontal indirection. On dissection, the wound was going deep, cutting muscle, parietal pleura on right side incised wound on front and inferior aspect of lower lobe of right lung and it communicated with injury No.3 on back aspect of right side of chest. The right side of pleural cavity was full of clotted and fluid blood. 3. Incised wound 1cm x .25cm on back aspect of right side of chest 3.5 cm from midline and 18 cm from scapula oblique in direction and clotted blood was present. Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -5- 4. Incised punctured wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm on right side of abdomen in right hypochondric region, 16 cm from nipple and 14 cm from midline, horizontal indirection. On dissection, the wound pierced abdominal muscles and there was incised wound on the superior aspect of righ lobe of liver. Abdominal cavity contained fluid and clotted blood. 5. Linear abrasion 1.5 cm in length horizontal indirection on front aspect of right upper arm, 6 cm from top of shoulder. 6. Incised wound 2 x .6 cm on back of right upper arm 6 cm from top of shoulder, vertical indirection and it was muscle deep. Clotted blood was present in the wound. 7. Incised wound 3 x 1 cm on back of left forearm 10 cm from elbow joint, vertical in direction, muscle deep. Clotted blood was present. 8. Incised wound 2 x .7 cm on postero medial aspect of left forearm, 2 cm below injury No.7. 11 cm from wrist joint, horizontal in direction. Clotted blood was present in the wound. 9. Incised wound 1 cm on the medial aspect of left ankle 2 cm above medial malleolus, horizontal in direction, scalp vein cannula was in the sephenous vein.” The Doctor opined the cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries caused by sharp weapon which were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -6- further opined that the the probable time between the injuries and death was immediate. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the injuries must have bled profusely. PW1 Maninder Singh (complainant) deposed on the same lines as recorded in his statement (Ex.PA) on the basis of which FIR was registered. PW2 Narinderpal Kaur (wife of the deceased) also reiterated the same facts as disclosed by PW1 Maninder Singh. PW3 Makhan Singh deposed that on 12.3.1998, he and deceased Varinder Singh was working in the Court and deceased Varinder Singh was maintaining the files due to inspection. At about 7.30 p.m. while he was sitting in the room for typing judgement, the deceased went out of the room and after 10-15 minutes, he heard a raula. On hearing the noise, he went outside and found Varinder Singh in an injured condition and his brother Maninder Singh and his wife were holding him. Then he saw respondent Gurdeep Singh holding a blood stained kirch at the place of occurrence and was going towards his quarter. He further deposed that tube-light was on. Then he, Narinderpal Kaur (PW2) and Maninder Singh (PW1) removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Moga in a jeep and got him admitted but Varinder Singh breathed his last at about 8.15 p.m. PW4 Shiv Lal Dhingra, Reader to the Court of Shr.B.K.Mehta, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Moga brought the daily attendance register of the Court which showed that on 12.3.1998, deceased Varinder Singh and Makhan Singh (PW3) were present on duty. This witness identified the initials of deceased Varinder Singh and Makhan Singh. PW7 ASI Gurmail Singh deposed that on 13.3.1998, he was Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -7- posted in Police Station City Moga-I. On that day, Inspector Darshan Singh (PW14) lifted blood stained earth after taking the same from the pillar, which was made into a sealed parcel with his seal bearing impression 'DS' and was taken into possession. PW12 Krishan Chand, Naib Nazar Court of Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Moga brought the attendance register for the month of March, 1998 according to which, Gurdeep Singh Chowkidar was present on 12.3.1998 and his presence has been marked in the register. In his cross-examination this witness further deposed that there were no initials of Gurdeep Singh on the presence marked on 12.3.1998 and on the other dates also. He further clarified that initials of Class IV employees were not taken in the register. PW14 Inspector Darshan Singh, deposed that on 12.3.1998, he was posted as SHO, P.S. City Moga. He alongwith other police officials were present near Railway crossing, Moga in connection with patrol duty where he received ruqa from the doctor of the Civil Hospital, Moga with regard to death Varinder Singh. Thereafter, he alongwith other police officials went to Civil Hospital, Moga and recorded the statement of Maninder Singh (PW1). On the basis of his statement (Ex.PA), FIR (Ex.PA/2) was registered. He further deposed that vide Ex.PK he got conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased. Thereafter he lifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB after making the same into a sealed parcel with the seal bearing 'DS'. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. After the post mortem, the clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession after making the same into in sealed parcels. He Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -8- further deposed that on 14.3.1998, he arrested Gurdeep Singh from kacha Zira road, Moga while patrolling and on the basis of his disclosure statement, he got recovered blood stained kirch from near the quarter of the accused under the Bohar tree which was also taken into possession after making the same into a sealed parcel. Report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PW) was also tendered into evidence vide which Soil (Ex.PB) and kirch (Ex.P5) were found to be stained with human blood. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidence against him was put to him. He denied the allegations. The trial Court after relying upon the evidence available on record acquitted Gurdeep Singh, respondent on the following grounds:- 1. The trial Court observed that there was delay in lodging the FIR. 2. The trial Court disbelieved the versions given by PW1 Maninder Singh, PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and PW3 Makhan Singh, Steno on the ground that according to the prosecution version, PW1 Maninder Singh, PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and PW3 Makhan Singh removed injured Varinder Singh to the hospital where he died and while recording the statement of Maninder Singh, statements of PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and PW3 Makhan Singh were not recorded, while they were present there. 3. The trial Court also disbelieved the version given by PW2 Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -9- Narinderpal Kaur to the effect that she had also accompanied PW1 Maninder Singh to the Court Complex on non-coming of Varinder Singh at home by 7.00 p.m. The trial Court held that it has come in the deposition of PW2 Narninderpal Kaur that for the last 2/3 days Varinder Singh was coming late to the house prior to the day of occurrence because of ensuing inspection. The trial Court has held that PW2 Narinderpal Kaur had no reason to accompany PW1 Maninder Singh to Court as she very well knew the reason of late coming of Varinder Singh to the house. 4. The trial Court further held that there were material discrepancies in the statements of PW1 Maninder Singh and PW2 Narinderpal Kaur. PW1 Maninder Singh, in his cross- examination stated that PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and his mother accompanied him to the Court. But while in examination-in- chief PW1 Maninder Singh never stated that his mother also accompanied him to Court. Further that PW2 Narinderpal Kaur had also not stated that her mother-in-law accompanied her to Court. She specifically stated that her mother-in-law remained at her residence and she had left her son under her care. 5. The trial Court further held that it was nowhere stated by PW3 Makhan Singh that he saw Gurdeep Singh causing injuries to Varinder Singh. He came to the place of occurrence after the injuries had already been inflicted and further that he reached at the spot 15/20 minutes after hearing raula after 7.30 p.m. Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -10- 6. Further the trial Court held that recovery of weapon was effected from an open place under a Bohar tree. The accused was interrogated on 14.3.1998. The trial Court further held that since the place of recovery was an open abandoned place, therefore, the same could be found by searching the place surrounding the place of occurrence. 7. The trial Court further held that there was no motive for Gurdeep Singh to kill Varinder Singh. It has been held that PW1 Maninder Singh and PW2 Narinderpal Kaur have stated that Varinder Singh used to come late because of ensuing Inspection, but no Inspection was going to be held even after 2/3 weeks of the occurrence or any intimation had been received from the High Court. 8. The trial Court further held that nothing has come on record to show that Varinder Singh was sitting late in the Court as inspection of Judicial Courts was to take place in the month of March, 1998 or in the near future by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the entire occurrence was witnessed by PW1 Maninder Singh, PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and PW3 Makhan Singh. PW2 Narinderpal Kaur has testified that the deceased had told her in the morning that he would be back from the Court by 5.00 p.m. When he had not reached the home even upto 7.00 p.m., she went to the Court complex accompanied by PW1 Maninder Singh. When they reached the Court complex at Moga, both these witnesses have deposed that they saw the accused inflicting kirch blows upon the deceased. On Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -11- hearing the noise of the deceased, Makhan Singh (PW3) who was working as Steno in the Court of Sh.B.K.Mehta, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Moga immediately came there. He saw the accused holding a blood stained kirch in his hand. The presence of PW3 Makhan Singh is established by the fact that Sh.B.K.Mehta, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Moga, in whose Court he was working, was present in the Court complex till 7.15 p.m.. It is thus contended that the trial Court committed a grave error in disbelieving the testimonies of three eye witnesses. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was no delay in lodging the FIR, as immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the hospital in a jeep by the three eye witnesses and they reached the hospital by 8.00 p.m.. The statement of the complainant in the present case was recorded by Inspector Darshan Singh at 10.30 p.m. Learned counsel submits that only 2½ hours elapsed between Varinder Singh reaching the hospital and lodging of the FIR and hence by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay. Counsel for the State has further submitted that the trial Court had committed a grave error in disbelieving the recovery of kirch which was the weapon of offence. It has come in evidence that recovery was effected from an open place under a Bohar tree on 14.3.1998. The recovery was made in pursuance to a disclosure statement made by the accused. Learned counsel submits that the finding of the trial Court that since recovery was effected from an open and abandoned place within the Court premises, therefore, the same could have easily been found by the Police earlier. It is contended that the recovery was effected on the day when the accused was arrested and hence the same cannot be doubted, because the recovery was Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -12- made in pursuance to the interrogation and disclosure statement made by the accused. Counsel for the State further submits that the trial Court has erred in disbelieving the fact that there was a motive for committing the crime. It has come in evidence that accused Gurdeep Singh who was working as Chowkidar in the Court premises at Moga wanted to go home early. As the deceased had not finished his work and had stayed back till 7.30 p.m., hence the accused was irked and annoyed that he would not able to close the gates of the Court rooms till Varinder Singh goes back home. When Varinder Singh did not go home despite being asked by the accused, this infuriated the accusd and he inflicted fatal injuries on the person of the deceased. It is thus submitted that there was a definite motive on part of the accused to commit the crime. Learned counsel has further submitted that the entire ocular version as given by the eye witnesses also stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as FSL report. The injuries described by the eye witnesses find fully mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased. As per FSL report, human blood was detected on the kirch which was recovered at the instance of the accused. Thus, the entire incident was witnessed by not only the wife Narinder Pal Kaur (PW2) and brother Maninder Singh (PW1) of the deceased, but also by PW3 Makhan Singh, Steno in the Court of Sh.B.K. Mehta. On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, learned State counsel submits that the judgement of the trial Court is perverse and the accused is liable to be convicted for having committed the murder of Varinder Singh. Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -13- The arguments raised by the counsel for the State have been vehemently controverted by the counsel appearing for the accused, who has reiterated the grounds on which the accused was acquitted. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the presence of PW1 Maninder Singh and PW2 Narinderpal Kaur at the place of occurrence is doubtful. There was no reason for these two witnesses to be present in the Court complex at 7.30 p.m. when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. Learned counsel has further submitted that the presence of PW3 is also doubtful, as no inspection was to take place in the next month or so and hence, PW3 Makhan Singh was not present at the place of occurrence. Counsel for the accused has further argued that the statements of PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and PW3 Makhan Singh were not recorded by the Police on the date of occurrence and rather, PW2 Narinderpal Kaur was allowed to go home. This also casts a doubt on the prosecution story. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that not only there has been delay in lodging of FIR, but the recovery of kirch cannot be believed as the same was recovered from an open place within the Court complex from under a Bohar tree and this place was easily accessible to all. On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, counsel for the accused submits that the the judgement of the trial Court is liable to be upheld. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and have perused the entire record in this case. From a perusal of the statement of PW2 Narinderpal Kaur (wife of the deceased), it has transpired that Varinder Singh had told her in the morning that he would be coming back home at 5.00 p.m.. When he failed Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -14- to reach home even upto 7.00 p.m., then she alongwith her brother-in-law went to the Court complex to enquire about Varinder Singh. On reaching the Court complex, they saw that accused Gurdeep Singh was inflicting kirch blows upon her husband. She has narrated the entire sequence of events vividly in her testimony. Her testimony has further been fully corroborated by PW1 Maninder Singh, brother-in-law of PW2 Narinderpal Kaur. This witness has also stated that on reaching the Court complex, they saw the accused giving kirch blows on the person of deceased Gurdeep Singh. Apart from these two witnesses the entire incident was also witnessed by Makhan Singh PW3 who was working as Steno in the Court of Sh.B.K.Mehta, to the extent that he saw the accused holding a blood stained kirch in his hand. This witness has also stated that on hearing the noise he left his Court and went outside and found Varinder Singh in an injured condition and his brother Maninder Singh and his wife Narinderpal Kaur holding the injured. He also saw accused Gurdeep Singh holding blood stained kirch at the scene of occurrence. This witness also deposed that apart from the aforementioned persons, no one else was present in the Court compound at the time of occurrence and no one came after the occurrence. After the occurrence Varinder Singh was immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Moga at around 8.00 p.m. where he succumbed to his injuries. The statement in the present case was recorded by Darshan Singh Inspector/SHO, P.S. City Moga (PW14), made by PW1 Maninder Singh, which was concluded by 10.30 a.m. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that only 2 hours elapsed after the occurrence took place upto the recording of the FIR and hence the trial Court has committed an obvious error in holding that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Crl.A. No.713-DBA of 2002 -15- The finding of the trial Court that there was material discrepancies in the statements of PW1 Maninder Singh and PW3 Narinderpal Kaur also does not have much bearing on this case. PW1 in his cross-examination has stated that he was accompanied to the Court by PW2 Narinderpal Kaur and his mohter. However, PW2 Narinderpal Kaur never stated that her mother-in-law accompanied her to the Court. This has been one of the grounds for acquittal of the accused. A perusal of the entire statement of PW1 shows that this witness in his examination-in-chief never stated that he was accompanied to the Court complex