IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 129-DB of 2004 Date of Decision: January 17 , 2008 Gurbachan Singh. … Appellant Versus State of Punjab. … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. Appellant-Gurbachan Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of Village Nangla, was convicted by the learned Trial Judge for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge, held by the learned Trial Court as proved against the appellant, was that he had murdered his father. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant and Gurmeet Singh are the two sons of deceased Kartar Singh. They have a sister by the name of Balbir Kaur who is married. Gurmeet Singh is also married. The appellant is a bachelor. Deceased Kartar Singh and his two sons were joint in mess and residence. On the relevant date, Tara Singh (father-in-law of the complainant/first informant Gurmeet Singh son of Kartar Singh) was visiting the house of his son-in-law in order to be able to meet his daughter and other members of her in-laws family. After dinner, Gurmeet Singh and also his wife and her Crl. Appeal No. 129-DB of 2004 father were engaged in a conversation in the courtyard of the house. An electric bulb was providing light at that place. At that point of time, Kartar Singh aforementioned was resting on a Cot at a little distance from the place where the above indicated trio were sitting. At about 10 P.M., the appellant appeared on the scene while he was carrying a Gandasa in his right hand. He announced that he would teach a lesson to his father for not effecting partition of the joint land and for not providing him (appellant) his due share of that agricultural holding. Before the complainant and those sitting with him could react, the appellant gave three sharp side Gandasa blows on the head of Kartar Singh. Thereafter, he fled the site of occurrence when Gurmeet Singh and his companions raised an alarm. Kartar Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. While leaving Tara Singh at the spot to guard the dead body of his father, the complainant went over to the police in the company of Member Panchayat Bhura Singh and lodged the First Information Report (Ex. PD/2). The prosecution presentation, at the trial, essentially rested upon the testimony on oath PW2-Gurmeet Singh and his father-in-law PW3 Tara Singh. PW8 – SI Rajwinder Singh had investigated the case. Dr. M.L. Khipla - PW1, had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kartar Singh. Ex.PO and Ex. PPR are the reports of the FSL. In the course of the investigation, the appellant led to the recovery of the weapon of offence (a blood stained Gandasa – Ex.P5) in pursuance of a disclosure statement. The testimony of other witnesses is formal in character. The appellant had entered a plea of innocence. On appraisal of the material available on the record in entirety, the learned Trial Judge recorded the finding under challenge. 2 Crl. Appeal No. 129-DB of 2004 Ms. Tanu Bedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, raised the following points to buttress her plea for invalidation of the impugned finding of conviction. a) Amarjit Kaur, who was available at the time of impugned occurrence, was not examined at the trial. The fact that she had been withheld from the witness box would justify the trial of an inference adverse to the interest of the prosecution; b) There is unexplained inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR inasmuch as the impugned occurrence had taken place at about 10.30 P.M.; while the ruqqa was sent only at about 1.30 A.M.; c) There was no motive on the part of the appellant to have done away with his father because the former, in any case, would have got a share in the property of the latter in due course. Insofar as the first indicated grievance is concerned, it merely requires to be stated to be negatived. There is no law which requires the prosecution to examine plurality of witnesses to prove a particular fact. The law would insist upon the protection of such number of witnesses who are competent to prove the fact deposed to by them. In the present case, the impugned occurrence had been witnessed by PW2-Gurmeet Singh/first informant, his wife Amarjit Kaur and PW3-Tara Singh (father-in-law of PW2-Gurmeet Singh and father of Amarjit Kaur). Two out of the trio were examined by the prosecution at the trial. On facts, it may be noticed that PW2-Gurmeet Singh and PW3- Tara Singh detailed the sequence of events, starting from their availability at the site of occurrence and culminating in the murder of Kartar Singh by the appellant. In the course of their statements, they also detailed the other relevant points including the manner in which the appellant appeared on the 3 Crl. Appeal No. 129-DB of 2004 scene while he was carrying a Gandasa and he gave three consecutive sharp side Gandasa blows on the head of his father. To our mind, their credit could not at all be impeached in spite of the fact that very lengthy cross- examination was directed at those witnesses. They stood the test of cross- examination very well. The learned counsel, in the context of the criticism under this very item, also argued that PW3-Tara Singh is a convenient witness and he had been introduced into the case only in order to enable PW2-Gurmeet Singh oust the appellant from inheritance of his father-Kartar Singh. There is absolutely nothing unnatural in the availability of PW3-Tara Singh at the site of occurrence. It is a fairly acceptable phenomenon that a father would visit the matrimonial house of his daughter just in order to meet his daughter and also to pay respects to members of her in-law’s family. It is not a case where PW3-Tara Singh was residing overseas or at a large distance. It is in the own testimony of PW3-Tara Singh that his village is at the distance of about 10-11 Kms. from the place of occurrence. That being so, casting of any doubt on his availability at the time of impugned occurrence is inconceivable. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice that, even otherwise, the testimony of PW3-Tara Singh inspires confidence. Though he did say that 5-7 persons were attracted to the spot by the raula raised by him, PW2-Gurmeet Singh he did not claim familiarity with their names as he is a stranger to that place. Insofar as the criticism (Item `b’), in the context of the delay in recording of the FIR is concerned, there also the learned counsel for the appellant is not on a firmer footing. In the present case, the impugned occurrence had taken place at about 10.30 P.M. PW2-Gurmeet Singh and one Bhura Singh, Member Panchayat, who arrived at the spot after the 4 Crl. Appeal No. 129-DB of 2004 commission of the crime, proceeded on cycle to the police station. It is in the testimony of Gurmeet Singh that the distance between his house and the place where they came across the police is about 6 kms. As already indicated, the ruqqa was sent at 1.30 A.M. The time which intervened the occurrence and the despatch of the ruqqa is not such which should raise eyebrows. Apart from the fact that mere delay in lodging of the FIR would not be, per-se, sufficient to discard an otherwise validly proved prosecution plea, the learned Trial Court has recorded valid reasons for holding that there was no delay in bringing the matter to the notice of the police. We have not been persuaded to find any fault with that part of the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge. That bring us to item No. `c’ which is the last ground of criticism directed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is a bachelor. As per the material obtaining on the file, the grievance announced by him at the spot itself was that he resented the non-effecting of partition of the agricultural holding by his father-Kartar Singh, who was aged about 80-81 years (vide PW1-Dr. M.L. Khipla). There is nothing on the file to indicate that the appellant was having any independent source of income. It appears that he wanted his share of the agricultural holding which stood in the name of his father and he was resentful of the refrain on the part of his father in effecting partition. This, by itself, is the motive which actuated the appellant to indulge in the impugned dastardly act. The defence plea that the appellant has been falsely implicated with a view to oust him from inheritance does not appeal to reason. A son cannot be expected to let the real culprits escape and to implicate his real brother in the murder of a parent just because it would lead to the ouster of the latter from inheritance. In the conventional society, which India 5 Crl. Appeal No. 129-DB of 2004 continues to be – the strides on the scientific and economic front notwithstanding, a son would deem it to be his sacred duty to ensure that the murderer of his parent is punished by law. No other point was argued. We must fairly notice that the learned counsel for the appellant presented the plea, as persuasively as the facts permitted. Though we are impressed with the industry and advocacy of the cause, we are not persuaded to agree with the plea of innocence put forth on behalf of the appellant. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find that the appeal is devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 17, 2008 vkd Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 6