IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 219-DB of 2002 Date of decision: 13.1.2010 *** Ranjit Singh @ Rana & Ors. ..APPELLANTS VS. State of Punjab ..RESPONDENT with Criminal Revision No. 2231 of 2003 *** Jarnail Singh ..PETITIONER VS. Ranjit Singh @ Rana & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. Amol Partap Singh, Advocate. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The above-referred appeal as well as revision are aftermath of judgment dated 4.2.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track court, Amritsar in Sessions Case No. 106 of 5.2.1997/22.1.2002, by virtue of which the appellants Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Gurvail Singh @ Gela and Balkar Singh have been convicted under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 302/ 149 IPC and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one month has been awarded. All the appellants have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 148/149 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. However, their co-accused Kashmir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh have been acquitted of the charges. Through the above referred appeal the appellants Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Gurvail Singh and Balkar Singh are impugning the judgment to the extent of their conviction and sentence while Jarnail Singh, the complainant has preferred criminal revision No.2231 of 2003 seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellants, besides is questioning the legality of the judgment dated 4.2.2002, so far as acquittal of Kashmir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh is concerned. We propose to dispose of both the cases by this common judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 219-DB of 2002. Recapitulation of facts, in brief, is necessary for the disposal of both the cases. Massa Singh (since deceased) and appellant Ranjit Singh @ Rana were having their agricultural lands, adjacent to each other in the revenue estate of village Nushera Dhalla. As per prosecution allegations, there was a common passage between their lands, which was included by Ranjit Singh @ Rana in his fields on 23.11.1996 at about 12.30 PM, though his said action was objected by Massa Singh and his family. Massa Singh would have never predicted that for this piece of land he has to lose his life. On that very day at about 2.30 PM Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Gurvail Singh, armed with pistols, Vir Singh son of Chanchal Singh, Balkar Singh son of Moola Singh, Bittu armed with dangs, Mukhtiar Singh carrying iron rod and Kashmir Singh having Kirpan came on tractors and, as per prosecution version, Kashmir Singh and Gurvail Singh started hurling abuses to Jarnail Singh while the other accused started raising watt in the land. On hearing the noise of abuses, Jarnail Singh and his grand-father Massa Singh came out and all the accused abruptly pounced upon Massa Singh and started giving fists blows to him; Vir Singh, Balkar Singh and Bittu gave thrusts of dangs on Massa Singh and consequently Massa Singh died at the spot. In the meantime, Gurmit Kaur, mother of Jarnail Singh and one Darshan Singh son of Khazan Singh also came there. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused also rushed towards Jarnail Singh, but he ran away to his residence. On the basis of statement Ex.PW5/A made by Jarnail Singh to ASI Surjit Singh ASI, FIR Ex.PW5/A/2 came into existence. Investigations were carried out. Inquest on the dead body of Massa Singh was done vide Ex.PW4/C and sent to the hospital for post-mortem where PW4 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai conducted post-mortem and found four injuries on the person of the deceased and in his opinion injury to vital organs viz. right kidney and spleen; tractor PB46-1877 was taken into police possession vide separate memo; scaled site plan Ex.PA of the place of occurrence was got prepared through Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW1). On completion of other usual formalities of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Gurvail Singh, Balkar Singh and Kashmir Singh while Vir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were placed in column No.2 in the challan and co-accused Bittu was reportedly died. However, lateron, during trial, both the accused i.e. Vir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with co-accused for the offence under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC, to which they were charge-sheeted. During trial, the prosecution examined Rishi Ram Draftsman as PW1, Harpal Singh ASI as PW2, Const. Bhupinder Singh as PW3, Dr. Gurmanjit Rai as PW4, Jarnail Singh complainant as PW5, Gurmeet Kaur as PW6, Jarmail Singh as PW7, SI Gajinder Singh as PW8, Surjit Singh ASI as PW9, Harjit Singh HC as PW10 and Inspector Jaswinder Singh as PW11. The prosecution also tendered the report of Chemical Examiner as Ex.PH. During the trial Vir Singh accused also died and accordingly trial against him was abated. The accused, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence their false implication. On conclusion of trial, the Court below found the accused Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Gurvail Singh, Balkar Singh, Vir Singh (since deceased) and Balraj Singh (since deceased) involved in the murder of Massa Singh and accordingly sentenced Ranjit Singh @ Rana, Gurvail Singh and Balkar Singh in the manner indicated above while Kashmir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were acquitted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record carefully. The FIR in this case had been lodged by PW.5 Jarnail Singh and the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon his testimony coupled with that of PW6 Gurmeet Kaur, his mother. We have gone through the statements of both the witnesses. They have given the entire sequence of the occurrence, as to the manner in which the accused-appellants had caused injuries to Massa Singh. Their testimonies have been assailed on account of their relationship with the deceased, as PW.5 Jarnail Singh is the grand son whereas Gurmeet Kaur is daughter-in-law of the deceased. But it is not the absolute law that the evidence of relation witnesses is not entitled to any weight but this very circumstance would add to the value of their evidence because they would be interested in ensuring that the real culprit responsible for the murder be punished and not the innocent person. Their statements are corroborative on material particulars. They were subjected to cross-examination. They stood firm to their stand. Not only this, the medical evidence produced on record corroborates the ocular account so far as the time of occurrence and weapon used are concerned. Therefore, we are unable to take a different view than taken by the Court below so far as involvement of appellant Ranjit Singh, Gurvail Singh and Balkar Singh in the death of Massa Singh is concerned. The motive on the part of the appellants is also well proved on record since Jarnail Singh and his family members have opposed their action of merging the common passage into his land. Learned defence counsel has failed to point out any severe contradiction in their testimonies, going to the root of the case, except some minor one which are bound to occur due to passage of time and are possible on account of rural background of the witnesses. Both the witnesses were found discrepant in the role assigned to Kashmir Singh while no overt act was attributed to Mukhtiar Singh and hence the Court below after evaluating the evidence placed on record separated grain from the chaff by acquitting Kashmir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Faced with the situation, learned defence counsel has confined his arguments that it is not a case where the accused-appellants had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. The question is in the circumstances in which the offence came to be committed in this case, could it ever be said that the accused intended to inflict that injury which proved to be fatal. The said inference is to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case though appellant Ranjit Singh @ Rana and Gurvail Singh were carrying fire arms i.e. pistols at the time of the said occurrence, but they never used the same. Rather, the deceased was subjected to fists and kick blows by them, though the other appellant Balkar Singh, who was stated to have armed with dang had given blows hood-wise. Otherwise, had there been any intention to commit the murder of Massa Singh, nothing prevented the present appellants to use the fire arm to commit the murder. In the case of Raje Ram & Ors. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995(1) CC Cases 61(SC), similar argument was addressed that the accused-appellants were though armed with weapons like axe, ballam, pistol etc. but no deadly weapon was used and it was observed that had the appellants shared the common intention to cause the death of the deceased, nothing could have prevented them from using the deadly weapons like axe, ballam, pistol etc. and came to the conclusion that the appellants had no intention to cause the death of the deceased and set aside the conviction under Section 302, 149 IPC by concluding that in such a case the offence would, therefore, be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304-II Indian Penal Code. The ratio of Raje Ram's case (supra) duly applies in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this context, further reliance can be placed upon the case of Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1996(1) RCR (Crl.) 786(SC). Thus, in view of the discussion above, we accordingly alter the conviction of the appellants from one under S. 302 to that under S. 304 Part- II Indian Penal Code and sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. However, their conviction and sentences awarded under other head as also the sentences of fine imposed upon the appellants shall remain intact. With the above modification, the instant appeal is disposed of while the revision petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE January 13,2010 Jiten IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2231 of 2003 Date of decision: 13.1.2010 *** Jarnail Singh ..PETITIONER VS. Ranjit Singh @ Rana & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Amol Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the respondents. ARVIND KUMAR, J. For orders, see Crl. Appeal No. 219-DB of 2002. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE January 13,2010 Jiten