IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 Dated of Decision:- April 23, 2009 Narinder Singh ....APPELLANT VERSUS State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Sh. Devinder Singh Gurna, Advocate and Mrs. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Satinder Singh Gill, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7.6.2000 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he convicted Narinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by statement Ex.P6 of Sukhwinder Singh made to ASI Varinderjit Singh, Police Post Fatehgarh Sahib. Sukhwinder Singh stated, that he is a resident of Village Manda District Ropar. His brother’s name is Major Singh. About 8/9 years back, 2 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 they used to reside with their parents in Dhupsari (Rasidpur) and Randhawa villages. Some years back Sukhwinder Singh along with his mother Shinder Kaur and younger brother Major Singh started residing in Village Dhirpur in the house of Bachan Singh Namberdar. His father had expired some years back due to illness. In 1996 he started working with Gurmail Singh resident of Village Randhawa, but now he is working with one Sucha Singh resident of Village Dhupsari. Shinder Kaur kept on working with Gurmail Singh in Village Randhawa. On 1.4.1997 in the night, when he came back from his work at about 9.00 p.m., he asked his brother Major Singh where was his mother. Major Singh told him that she had gone to Randhawa Village. Sukhwinder Singh and his brother Major Singh went to Village Randhawa on the motor (tubewell) of Gurmail Singh, as he knew that Gurmail Singh used to sleep on his tubewell. It was about mid night. An electric bulb was on in the room of the tubewell. Sukhwinder Singh was ahead and his brother Major Singh was following him. In the light of the electric bulb, he saw Narinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh armed with a kirpan giving injuries to Shinder Kaur. Gurmail Singh, father of Narinder Singh was also bleeding. Both of them i.e. Sukhwinder Singh and Major Singh came back to their house and out of fear, they did not go to the police in the night, but went in the morning at 6.30 a.m. to report the matter. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.P21 was registered on 2.4.1997 at 7.45 a.m. at Police Station Sirhind and the special report reached the C.J.M., Fatehgarh Sahib at 9.30 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Bhupinder Singh PW1, Paramjit Sood Patwari PW2, Sukhwinder Singh PW3, Major Singh PW4, ASI Darshan Singh PW5, C. Naib Singh PW6, 3 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 ASI Varinderjit Singh PW7, HC Harpreet Singh PW8, C. Kulwant Singh PW9, HC Pritpal Singh PW10, Mohan Lal PW11 and Janander Joshi PW12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that the conduct of both the eye witnesses Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4, who are the sons of deceased Shinder Kaur, is unnatural. They saw their own mother being brutally attacked and injured by the appellant, but they did not come forward to save her, nor did they make any hue and cry, nor did they tell anyone in the village about the murder of their mother while coming back to their house. Throughout the night, they did not go to the police post. In fact they did not see the occurrence. HC Harpreet Singh PW8 in his testimony has stated, that when they went to the place of occurrence, Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 were not with the police party. It has been stated by Sukhwinder Singh PW3 that they accompanied the police, when they went to the place of occurrence in the morning. Recovery of kirpan Ex.MO3 is suspicious. It was not sent to the FSL, to verify as to whether it had human blood on it or not. Dr. Bhupinder Singh PW1 has stated in his testimony, that injuries No.1 and 8 on the body of deceased Shinder Kaur and injuries No. 1, 2 and 7 on the body of deceased Gurmail Singh cannot be suffered with kirpan Ex.MO3. It is a case of blind murder. Both Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 did not see the occurrence. Shinder Kaur was having illicit relations with Gurmail Singh and the village people did not like their behaviour, as the motor (tubewell) being just 7-8 acres away from the village. Their behaviour was a nuisance to the villagers. Some unknown 4 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 persons from the village had committed the murders at night and appellant Narinder Singh was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that FIR Ex.P21 is prompt. Occurrence had taken place at about 9/11 p.m. on 1.4.1997. It was night time. It is in the morning at 6.30 a.m. on 2.4.1997, Sukhwinder Singh PW3 went to the police post and got recorded his statement, on the basis of which FIR Ex.P21 was registered at Police Station Sirhind on 2.4.1997 at 7.45 a.m. The special report reached the C.J.M., Fatehgarh Sahib on the same day at 9.30 a.m. Sukhwinder Singh PW3 would not have falsely implicated appellant Narinder Singh for the murder of his own mother. Appellant Narinder Singh did not like his father Gurmail Singh, who had illicit relations with Shinder Kaur and thus he committed the murder of both Shinder Kaur and Gurmail Singh. The motive for the commission of the offence is very strong. Both the eye witnesses Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 saw the occurrence, but they being poor persons and appellant being a landlord, they out of fear did not go to the police station, but went to their house and on the next day in the morning they informed the police. Appellant Narinder Singh was known to Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and it could not be a case of mistaken identity, as an electric bulb was on. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that Shinder Kaur and his father Gurmail Singh were having illicit relations. He has further stated, that they were usually lying naked on the tubewell. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 5 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a blind murder. Deceased Shinder Kaur and Gurmail Singh had illicit relations, which was not liked by the people of the village. They were often seen at the tubewell of deceased Gurmail Singh, which was only 7-8 killas (acres) away from the village. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit, as both the eye witnesses Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4, sons of deceased Shinder Kaur, have given their statements in Court cogently, convincingly and in a truthful manner. Their statements inspire confidence. Sukhwinder Singh PW3 has stated in his testimony before the Court, which gives corroboration to FIR Ex.P21, that on the day of occurrence, he along with his brother Major Singh PW4 went to the tubewell of Gurmail Singh, where Shinder Kaur their mother had gone, as she worked with Gurmail Singh. The electric bulb was on. They saw appellant Narinder Singh armed with a kirpan Ex.MO3 giving injuries to Shinder Kaur, while Gurmail Singh who had also been given injuries, was lying bleeding in the room of the tubewell. Deceased Gurmail Singh is no other person than the father of appellant Narinder Singh. Thereafter seeing the occurrence, both Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 got afraid being poor persons and went back to their house. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant Narinder Singh is a landlord, while Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 are farm labourers. It is on the next day at 6.30 a.m. i.e. on 2.4.1997 they went to the police post and reported the matter. Occurrence had taken place on 1.4.1997 between 9/11 p.m. A suggestion has been put to Sukhwinder Singh PW3, that his mother Shinder Kaur used to take liquor on the tubewell of Gurmail Singh 6 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 and under the influence of liquor, both used to tease the ladies who passed by. This suggestion shows the illicit relations of both deceased Shinder Kaur and Gurmail singh. In FSL Report Ex.P31/A, some hair were found in the hand of deceased Gurmail Singh, which were sent to the FSL and the report suggests that they were human hair. These are those very hair of the appellant, when Gurmail Singh was trying to save himself that came into his hand while fighting with appellant Narinder Singh. Going through the injuries on the person of deceased Shinder Kaur, injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14 are on the right fore-arm. These incised wounds were probably caused, when deceased Shinder Kaur was trying to save herself from the kirpan blows being inflicted on her by appellant Narinder Singh. Injuries No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are stab wounds on the back. These injuries were caused probably when Shinder Kaur was trying to save herself and running away from the tubewell. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Sukhwinder Singh PW3 has stated in his statement that he accompanied the police, while Harpreet Singh PW8 has stated, that Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 did not accompany them and further that blood stained kirpan Ex.MO3 was not sent to the FSL for verification whether it is human blood, does not have much significance, as the case is of an eye witness account. The opinion given by Dr. Bhupinder Singh PW1, that injuries No.1 and 8 to deceased Shinder Kaur and injuries No.1, 2 and 7 on deceased Gurmail Singh are not possible with a kirpan is not the correct opinion, as injuries on the person of deceased Shinder Kaur were incised wounds and 7 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 injuries on the person of deceased Gurmail Singh are the ones, when he fell down after having received injured on his head and then his head hit a hard surface. In fact the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. There is no delay in lodging of FIR Ex.P21. Occurrence had taken place on 1.4.1997 at about 9/11 p.m. FIR Ex.P21 came into existence on 2.4.1997 at 7.45 a.m. in Police Station Sirhind. The special report reached the C.J.M., Fatehgarh Sahib on 2.4.1997 at 9.30 a.m. Seven hours delay in reporting the occurrence and recording of the FIR is adequately explained. It was night time and both Sukhwinder Singh PW3 and Major Singh PW4 being the poor farm labourers were afraid to go out in the night lest they also be attacked by appellant Narinder Singh, who was a landlord. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to question No.25, appellant Narinder Singh has categorically stated that Gurmail Singh and Shinder Kaur were usually lying naked on the tubewell and used to cause nuisance. On the fateful day i.e. 1.4.1997 at 9/11 p.m. in the night, appellant Narinder Singh saw his father Gurmail Singh and Shinder Kaur in a compromising position. Shinder Kaur had only a shirt on herself, while his father Gurmail Singh was naked. This statement of his finds corroboration from the medical evidence, as this is the condition in which they were brought to the hospital. It has come in the evidence of Dr. Bhupinder Singh PW1. It was the behaviour of both the deceased, which provoked the appellant, which appellant could not tolerate. He could not control himself and in the process gave fatal injuries to his father Gurmail Singh and Shinder Kaur. 8 Criminal Appeal No. 352 -DB of 2000 We are of the considered opinion that appellant is guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. Conviction of the appellant is modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. His sentence is also modified from life imprisonment to 10 years R.I. Fine shall remain intact. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, appeal is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) April 23, 2009 JUDGE SKArora WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO