IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13.10.2010 Arvinder Singh @ Rinku and another .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT Crl. A. No. 29-DB of 2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13.10.2010 Sukhwinder Singh @ Jolly .... APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate, for the appellants (in Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003) Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant (in Crl. A. No. 29-DB of 2003) Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1-DB of Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -2- 2003, filed by Arvinder Singh @ Rinku and Sukhwinder Singh @ Jolly and Criminal Appeal No. 29-DB of 2003, filed by Sukhwinder Singh @ Jolly, who had already filed Criminal Appeal No. 1-DB of 2003. 2. Both the appellants were tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Ranjit Singh. The trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 7.11.2002, convicted and sentenced both the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four month, under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. As per the prosecution version, on 16.5.1999 at about 7.30 PM, Ranjit Singh (deceased), a resident of village Hambran, had gone to Bazar to bring milk. When he reached near the house of Jaswant Singh, his wife Harjinder Kaur (complainant-PW.6) and son Gagandeep Singh (PW.7) were standing on the gate of their house. At that time, accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku (appellant No.1), who is son of the elder brother of Ranjit Singh, passed from there on his scooter bearing registration No. PB-10H- 9224 and accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Jolly (appellant No.2), who was holding a dah in his right hand, was sitting on the pillion of the scooter, being driven by accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku. The accused stopped their scooter near Ranjit Singh, and accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku raised lalkara that Ranjit Singh should not be allowed to go un-hurt and he be taught a lesson for not allowing the sale deed of the land to be executed. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -3- Thereupon, complainant Harjinder Kaur and her son Gagandeep Singh ran towards Ranjit Singh to rescue him. Within their sight, accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Jolly gave a dah blow to Ranjit Singh, which was hit on his left leg. Accused Arvinder Singh, while keeping the scooter in starting position, parked it on its stand and took out a Sua from the scooter and gave many Sua blows in the chest and abdomen of Ranjit Singh. On sustaining these blows, Ranjit Singh fell down on the ground with face downwards. While he was lying fallen on the ground, accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku stabbed Sua blow in his Maur (backside of the shoulder). Thereafter, accused Sukhwinder Singh also gave dah blows to Ranjit Singh,while he was lying down. It is the further case of the prosecution that having seen the people gathering at the spot, both the accused ran away on the scooter with dah. Thereafter, complainant Harjinder Kaur, her son Gagandeep Singh and one Santokh Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village Hambran, who had also come at the spot and had witnessed the entire occurrence, went near Ranjit Singh and they found that due to sustaining of injuries, his condition was very serious and he was completely smeared with blood. All the aforesaid three persons took Ranjit Singh in a Maruti van to New Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, where the doctor declared him dead at 8.45 PM. Doctor sent a ruqa (Ex.PW13/A) at 9.30 PM to the police of Police Station Hambran informing about the death of Ranjit Singh. After getting the information, the police party headed by Niranjan Singh SI/SHO, Police Station Hambra (PW.13) reached the Hospital. At Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -4- about 10.40 PM, complainant Harjinder Kaur made statement (Ex.PG) to Niranjan Singh SI. 4. The motive behind the occurrence, as stated by the complainant in her statement, was that Atma Singh (father of accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku), the elder brother of deceased Ranjit Singh, had entered into an agreement to sell regarding 5 Killas of the ancestral land. Ranjit Singh was against that agreement. He had obtained stay order from the Civil Court regarding the registration of the sale deed. Therefore, accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku was having grudge against Ranjit Singh. 5. On the basis of the statement (Ex.PG) made by the complainant, the formal FIR (Ex.PG/2) was registered on 16.5.1999 at 11.10 PM and the special report was sent, which was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate on the next day i.e. on 17.5.1999 at 10.00 AM. 6. On 17.5.1999, Niranjan Singh SI prepared inquest report (Ex.PD) and the dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for post mortem examination. Thereafter, the blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence. After putting the same in a plastic box, it was made into a sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PH). A steel can (Ex.P10), name of Ranjit Singh being engraved on it and one pair of chappals along with a comb were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memos (Ex.PJ and Ex.PK). The rough site plan (Ex.PW-13/B) of the place of occurrence was also prepared. 7. On 17.5.1999 at 1.40 PM, the Medical Board, consisting of Dr. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -5- Gurcharan Singh Monga (PW.1) and Dr. Manjit Singh conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ranjit Singh. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PA), the following eight injuries were found on his person : 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on left mid clevincular line, 3” below left nipple. 2. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm, 3” lateral to injury No.1. 3. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm anterior part of left axilla. 4. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on right hypochondial region 3” from umbilicus. 5. Incised wound 15 cm x 2 ½ cm posterior medial aspect of left knee,underlying muscle exposed. Blood vessel cut. 6. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm posterior aspect of left elbow, muscle exposed. 7. Stab wound round in shape ½ cm x ½ cm with ice breaking sua with wooden handle present in the wound in inter scapular region at the level of T6 vertebra. Sua is 15 cm inside the wound. 8. Eight stab wounds round in shape .5 cm in diameter present in the back of chest, three of them on right scapular region and two 12 cm below injury No.7, one on mid line and others on right side. On exploration of thorax and abdomen, thorax cavity was found full of blood. Right upper and middle lobe of lung were lacerated. Upper lobe of left lung was punctured. Right vantnicle of heart at the posterior aspect was punctured. Stomach contained blood stained fluid and was punctured. Kurta and Banyan were blood stained and corresponding cuts of all injuries were Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -6- present. Payjama and Kuchha were blood stained and corresponding cut of injury was also present. The cause of death, as opined by the Doctors, was due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of injuries to vital organs sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were stated to be ante mortem in nature. The probable time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was about 18 hours. 8. On 26.5.1999, Niranjan Singh SI arrested both the accused. On 28.5.1999, accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Jolly was interrogated and in pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.PW8/A), he got recovered dah (Ex.P1), which was wrapped in a glazed paper and was buried underneath in the field of popular trees, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PW8/C). The rough site plan (Ex.PW13/C) of the place of recovery was also prepared. On the same day, during interrogation, accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku, handed over a slip to the police, in respect of deposit of scooter bearing registration No. PB-10H-9024 at Railway Station, Ludhiana. By showing the said chit to the Attendant, Northern Railway, Ludhiana, the scooter was got recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PW8/D). 9. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed against the appellants and they were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -7- 10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, out of whom PW.1 Dr. Gurcharan Singh Monga, PW.6 Harjinder Kaur (complainant - eye witness), PW.7 Gagandeep Singh (eye witness) and PW.13 Inspector Niranjan Singh (Investigating Officer) are the material witnesses and the remaining witnesses are formal in nature. 11. PW.1 Dr. Gurcharan Singh Monga, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ranjit Singh, has proved the Post Mortem Report of the deceased (Ex.PA) and the diagram (Ex.PA/1) showing the seats of injuries. After seeing dah (Ex.P1) and Sua (Ex.P9), he specifically stated that the incised wounds and the stab wounds, found on the dead body, can be caused with dah (Ex.P1) and Sua (Ex.P9), respectively. 12. PW.6 Harjinder Kaur (complainant) and PW.7 Gagandeep Singh, who are wife and son, respectively, of deceased Ranjit Singh, have fully supported the case of the prosecution. They have specifically stated that they had witnessed the entire occurrence and in their presence, both the accused came on the scooter and caused injuries to the deceased with dah and Sua. 13. PW.13 Inspector Niranjan Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case, has proved all the material documents, prepared by him, and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 14. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the appellants denied all the allegations appearing against them in the Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -8- prosecution evidence. They simply pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. Appellant Arvinder Singh alias Rinku stated that in his house, adjoining to the house of the complainant, he had constructed 10 rooms, and 10-12 Bihari labourers were residing there, who used to create nuisance by beating drums and singing songs at night time. The deceased had given beatings to them twice or thrice and he also used to ask him (appellant Arvinder Singh alias Rinku) to eject those labourers from those rooms, to which he objected. Appellant Arvinder Singh alias Rinku took the plea that on account of this revenge, he has been falsely implicated in this case and the deceased was killed by one un-identified person at night time, regarding which the police had informed them. Appellant Sukhwinder Singh alias Jolly adopted the statement of his co-accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku. 15. In defence, the appellants examined DW.1 Mukesh Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Mullanpur Dakha, who proved the sale deed dated 24.9.1996 (Ex.DX), executed by Atma Singh (elder brother of deceased Ranjit Singh), father of appellant No.1 Arvinder Singh alias Rinku, in favour of one Amar Singh. 16. The trial court, while relying upon the eye version account of PW.6 Harjinder Kaur (complainant) and PW.7 Gagandeep Singh, the medical evidence, which has been found to be consistent with the ocular evidence, as well as the motive for the appellants to commit the crime, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated above. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -9- prosecution evidence, argued that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial court was not justified in convicting them for committing the murder of Ranjit Singh. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, there is un-explained delay in sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. By taking the benefit of the said delay, the prosecution version was concocted and two eye witnesses were planted. Learned counsel, while referring to the statements and the conduct of the eye witnesses, namely PW.6 Harjinder Kaur and PW.7 Gagandeep Singh, argued that they were not present at the time of the occurrence and had not seen the occurrence. According to him, these witnesses could not explain as to why they did not provide any first aid to injured Ranjit Singh and they even did not put a drop of water in the mouth of the injured. They could not tell the names of the persons, who gathered on the place of occurrence. Their blood stained clothes were not taken into possession. According to the learned counsel, all these facts indicate that these witnesses had not seen the occurrence, therefore, their depositions in the court as witnesses of the occurrence are doubtful. Learned counsel further argued that in the instant case, the prosecution has also failed to prove the alleged motive. He pointed out that before the occurrence, on the basis of the alleged agreement of sale, executed by Atma Singh (father of accused Arvinder Singh alias Rinku), the sale deed was already executed, therefore, the alleged motive of the crime was not there on the day of occurrence. Thus, according to the learned Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -10- counsel, conviction of both the appellants is liable to be set aside. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State argued that immediately after the occurrence, statement of the complainant was recorded without any delay. Both the eye witnesses are the natural witnesses and their presence at the time of the occurrence, which had taken place very close to their house, was beyond any doubt. She further argued that testimonies of these two witnesses have been fully corroborated by the version given by the eye witnesses. According to the learned counsel, testimonies of both the eye witnesses have been rightly held to be reliable and trust-worthy and the trial court has been justified in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 19. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction of both the appellants, as recorded by the trial court. The case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies of two eye witnesses, namely PW.6 Harjinder Kaur and PW.7 Gagandeep Singh. They are wife and son of the deceased. Merely because they are related to the deceased, their testimonies cannot be discarded. We have carefully and cautiously examined their statements. The occurrence had taken place very close to the house of the deceased at 7.30 PM. The presence of both the eye witnesses at that time near their house was most natural. They have been cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing incriminating could be elicited from their cross - examination. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -11- Merely because they neither gave any first aid to injured Ranjit Singh at the spot nor put even a drop of water in his mouth, it cannot be inferred that they were not present at the spot and had not seen the occurrence. At that time, anxiety of both the witnesses was to take the injured to the Hospital, so that his life can be saved. Therefore, they immediately shifted the injured to the Hospital. In the Hospital record also, their presence was marked. Thereafter, when the police reached the Hospital, at that time also, both the witnesses were very much present in the Hospital. Thus, their presence at the time of the occurrence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, on the ground that their blood stained clothes were not taken into possession by the investigating agency, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellants put much emphasis on the fact that both the eye witnesses, in their statements, could not tell the names of the persons,who had gathered at the spot, but in our opinion, merely on account of this fact, testimonies of both these eye witnesses cannot be discarded or taken to be doubtful. Learned counsel also pointed out a minor contradiction in the statements of these two eye witnesses. According to him, Harjinder Kaur (PW.6), in her statement, had stated that immediately after the occurrence, while they were in the way to the Hospital, her injured husband Ranjit Singh was not talking to her. On the other hand, her son Gagandeep Singh (PW.7) had stated that his father had talked to him. This contradiction is very minor in nature, on the basis of which testimonies of these two witnesses, who are most natural witnesses, Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -12- cannot be discarded. The testimonies of both these witnesses are being fully corroborated by the medical evidence. From the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PA), it is clear that only two types of weapons were used. The injuries received by the deceased have also been caused by two types of weapons. The nature of wounds were incised and stab. The sizes of the wounds further clearly indicate that the injuries have been caused by dah (Ex.P1) and Sua (Ex.P9), the weapons of offence used in the crime. At the time of the post mortem examination, the Sua (Ex.P9) was found in the body of the deceased. Merely because the Doctor has not appropriately used the word `punctured wound' for the injuries caused by the Sua and described those injuries as `stab wounds', no benefit can be given to the accused. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and minutely analysing the testimonies of the two eye witnesses, we are of the opinion that their presence at the spot is not doubtful at all and their testimonies are wholly reliable and trust-worthy. 20. We have also carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding the delay in the delivery of special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Undisputedly, the special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 17.5.1999 at 10.00 AM, i.e. after about 10 hours of the registration of the case. In our opinion, this delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, the occurrence had taken place on 16.5.1999 at about 7.30 PM. Immediately after the occurrence, the injured was taken to the Hospital and at 8.45 PM, the Doctor declared him dead. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -13- Thereafter, the Doctor sent ruqa (Ex.PW13A) to the police at 9.30 PM, upon which the police reached the Hospital and at 10.40 PM, statement of complainant Harjinder Kaur (Ex.PG) was recorded, on the basis of which the FIR (Ex.PG/2) was registered at 11.10 PM. PW.4 Bagga Singh Constable, who delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, stated that the special report was handed over to him at 11.55 PM and on that night, in the way, his scooter had gone out of order, due to which he delivered the special report to the Magistrate only in the morning. Since as per the Hospital record, the injured was taken to the Hospital at 8.45 PM, the medical ruqa was sent to the police at 9.30 PM, statement of the complainant was recorded at 10.40 PM, and the FIR was registered at 11.10 PM, therefore, we do not find any reason to come to the conclusion that the prosecution version was concocted because of delivery of special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 10 AM. The matter was promptly reported to the police without any delay and merely on account of some delay in delivering the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, no adverse inference, as argued by learned counsel for the appellants, can be drawn and the prosecution version cannot be thrown away. Thus, in our opinion, the prosecution has fully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, was fully justified to convict the appellants for committing the murder of Ranjit Singh. 21. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence is upheld and the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Crl. A. No. 1-DB of 2003 -14- 22. Since appellant Sukhwinder Singh alias Jolly is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 13, 2010 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ndj JUDGE