Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 -1- ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. …. Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 Decided on: 10th March, 2008. Prem Singh . … Appellant Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present:- Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate as Amicus-curiae for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. … S. D. ANAND, J. This appeal, at the hands of Prem Singh, is directed against his conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of Kailash Giri. On 17.7.1996, PW 6 Gurbachan Singh and PW 7 Jaimal Singh were returning to their village after having visited B.D.O. office of Anandpur Sahib. They passed by the cremation ground of Anandpur Sahib at about 5.45 p.m. They heard a Raula raised by Kailash Giri, a Sadh who used to reside in the cremation ground. On moving forward, they found that the appellant was giving Gandasi blows on various parts of body of Kailash Giri. When they Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 -2- ... parked their cycles in order to able to get near them, the appellant fled the spot, taking away Gandasi along with him. Kailash Giri died instantaneously over there. The ocular version was testified at the trial by PW 6 Gurbachan Singh and PW 7 Jaimal Singh. PW 8 Piara Singh (Sarpanch of the village) testified to the making of an extra-judicial confession before him by the appellant. PW 9 Jagtar Singh had witnessed an altercation dated 1.7.1996 or 2.7.1996, to which deceased Kailash Giri and two other Sadhs and the appellant-were a party. The Sadhs had overpowered and belaboured the appellant. Jagtar Singh intervened and came to the rescue of the appellant, who left the spot with a threat that he would teach the three Sadhs a lesson on some other day when all three of them would not be in the company of each other. PW 10 DSP Jagtar Singh (then posted as SHO, PS Anandpur Sahib) had investigated the case. PW Balwinder Singh was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellant. The other witnesses gave testimony which is formal in character. The appellant raised a pure and simple plea of innocence and alleged false implication. DW1 Maan Singh was examined in defence evidence. He testified that he and the appellant were proceeding towards Gurdwara Kesgarh Sahib on 17.7.1996 at about 2.30 PM when both of them were detained and interrogated. The witness was let off at about 7.30 PM; while the appellant was detained. Mr. Vivek Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Puneet Gupta, appointed as Amicus-Curiae, argues that the prosecution had not been able to prove any motive which could have actuated the appellant to Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 -3- ... commit the crime for which he stands convicted. The plea raised is oblivious of the testimony of PW 9 Jagtar Singh. He is an independent witness. There is not even an averment that he had any inimical inclination towards the appellant or that he had any score to settle with him on account whereof he would be inclined to depose against him. There also is no averment that he has any favourable inclinations vis-a- vis the complainant. The mere fact that he did not intimate the occurrence he had witnessed, to the police is not at all sufficient to discard his testimony. On his own showing, (and not contradicted on behalf of the appellant at the trial) he was a passer-by and he happened to witness the averred altercation and he separated the parties. There was no reason for him to go over to the police once the parties had been separated and the parties went their own way. The threat held out by the appellant also did not oblige this witness to go over to the police. As a good smaritan, he intervened and did not allow the situation to worsen any further. That was all about it. Insofar as PW 6 Gurbachan Singh and PW 7 Jaimal Singh are concerned, they detailed the sequence of events in a very forthright manner. PW6 Gurbachan Singh denied having appeared as a witness for the police in any other case. The tenor of the question (directed at him) is suggestive of the fact that he was a convenient witness of the police. After his denial in the relevant behalf, the matter was not pursued any further. There is, thus, no material on the file to prove that he is a convenient witness of the police. Insofar as PW 7 Jaimal Singh is concerned, it was not even suggested to him that he has any earlier association with the police or that he is a convenient witness of the police. It is neither here nor there for the learned counsel for the appellant to doubt the credentials of both these P.Ws. The credentials of these Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 -4- ... witnesses cannot be doubted because PW 6 Gurbachan Singh categorically testified that both of them had been to the office of B.D.O. in connection with a village job; that the application was presented before the named BDO and that no diary number had been obtained. It is a matter of common observation that the public servants in the government offices are reluctant to give receipts of various applications. In this particular case, PW 6 Gurbachan Singh could have no reasons to insist upon the obtaining of diary number because he had presented the application before the BDO himself. As a responsible public servant, the BDO could be trusted that the contents of the application would receive his attention. Even otherwise, the village functionaries have to deal with the BDO day in and day out and they (village functionaries) would not like to spoil the working relationship with the Block Development and Panchayat Officer by insisting upon the issuance of a receipt number qua an application. The plea shall stand negatived accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellant, then, vehemently argues that the prosecution has not been able to adduce convincing evidence to prove the exact nature of the weapon of offence used in the crime. In the context, he points out that the weapon of offence is recorded as a Kulhari in the inquest report and the post mortem report; whereas the prosecution version through out is that the deceased had been done to death with a Gandasi. The plea is neither here nor there. By the time the inquest report is brought into being and post-mortem examination is conducted, the official preparing it (the Inquest Report or the Post Mortem Report) would only notice the nature of weapon of offence on an assumed premise in view of the nature of the injury. Things could be different if the police official preparing the inquest report were to attribute the relevant weapon to an eye witness and the same applies to the Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 -5- ... medical officer conducting the post mortem examination. In that eventuality, if that witness enters the witness box and testifies that a weapon different from the one indicated by him at an earlier point of time had been used, his credit could be deemed to have been impeached. In the present case, the prosecution witnesses throughout have been giving out that the blows had been given by the appellants with a Gandasi. It is a Gandasi only which had been presented before the Medical Officer and he opined that the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by it. In view of that consistent presentation of the weapon of offence used, the mention of a Kulhari in the inquest report/post- mortem report is rendered insignificant. The fact that the appellant, in the course of interrogation, made a disclosure statement and, thereafter, got the recovery of Gandasi Ex.P2 effected, also goes a long way to buttress the prosecution plea. In the present case, the prosecution version is supported by two independent eye witnesses. The motive for the crime, in the form of an earlier occurrence, is testified on oath by PW8 Piara Singh in a forthright fashion. There was no inordinate and/or unexplained delay in notifying the offence to the police. There is nothing unnatural in the appellant having opened his heart before PW Piara Singh, who is none else or other than the Sarpanch of the village, particularly when he was familiar with the appellant even prior to that. The mere fact that he had no idea about the parentage of the appellant does not persuade us to discard his testimony, particularly when he testified that the appellant had no permanent abode in Anandpur Sahib. Further, PW 8 Piara Singh lived up to his duty and produced the appellant before the police. We find that the judgment recorded by the learned Trial Judge is well reasoned and borne out by the substantive evidence appearing on the Crl. Appeal No.127-DB OF 1999 -6- ... record. We find nothing irregular or perverse in the manner of appreciation of evidence by him. The appeal is devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE March 10,2008. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE sn