IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 Dated of Decision:- January 13, 2009 Hakam Singh ....APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present:- Sh. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. S.S.Gill, Addl. Advocate General Punjab for respondent. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 1.12.2005 of the Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby he convicted Hakam Singh son of Lakhbir Singh under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Under Section 302 IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years. Under Section 307 IPC he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Pala Singh @ Sukhpal Singh son of Hakam Singh and Bhura Singh and Malkiat Singh both sons of Lakhbir Singh were charged for the murder of Gurlal Singh, but were acquitted by the learned trial Court. No appeal has been filed by the State against their acquittal. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PN of Bakshish Singh given at Police Station Budhlada to Inspector Chuhar Singh. Bakshish Singh stated, that he is a resident of Village Musa. He came to Village Dodra on 22.11.2002 at 5.00/5.15 p.m. to meet his aunt Dalip Kaur. He along with his aunt’s son Gurlal Singh and Harwinder Singh son of Lachhman Singh, both residents of Dodra, were coming back to the house after irrigating the fields named Rohiwala of Gurlal Singh. When they reached 20/25 karms away from the house of Hakam singh son of Lakhbir Singh resident of Village Dodra, they saw him armed with 12 bore gun standing along with Bhura Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, Pala Singh and Malkiat Singh @ Bhunda sons of Hakam Singh. Bhura Singh raised a lalkara, that Gurlal Singh be taught a lesson for not taking back Amarjit Kaur. Pala Singh and Malkiat Singh @ Bhunda instigated Hakam Singh, that Gurlal Singh should not escape today. Hakam Singh thereafter fired a shot, with his DBBL gun, which hit on the left flank of Gurlal Singh. Gurlal singh fell down. Hakam Singh fired another shot at Gurlal Singh, which hit him on his right shoulder. Bakshish Singh and Harwinder Singh shouted for help. Hakam Singh then fired another shot, which hit Harwinder Singh on his forehead. Thereafter all the accused ran away. In the meantime, Lachhman - 2 - Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 Singh father of Harwinder Singh came to the spot and took Harwinder Singh to Budhlada for treatment on a vehicle. The motive for the commission of the offence is that Hakam Singh arranged the marriage of Gurlal Singh with Amarjit Kaur, who was Hakam Singh’s brother-in-law’s daughter (Sala’s daughter) about 15 years back. Amarjit Kaur did not have any issue and Gurlal Singh left her at her parents’ house and stated, that he was not ready to keep her as his wife. Hakam Singh, who had arranged the marriage, took offence to this. Bakshish Singh then rang up his Village Musa and informed his uncle Maghar Singh son of Kheta Singh, who then came to Village Dodra. Dalip Kaur, aunt of Bakshish Singh and chowkidar Sukhpal Singh were left near the dead body and thereafter Bakshish Singh went to Police Station Budhlada to report the matter. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PN/2 was recorded on 22.11.2002 at 8.00 p.m. The special report reached the J.M.I.C., Mansa, on the same day at 11.00 p.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Kashmir Singh PW1, Dr. Kulwant Singh PW2, Bakhshish Singh PW3, Harvinder Singh PW4, Maghar Singh PW5, Insepctor Chuhar Singh PW6, Harbans Lal Sub Inspector (Retd.) PW7, HC Gurdarshan Singh PW8, Constable Amarjit Singh PW9 and HC Teja Singh PW10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at 5.15 p.m. on 22.11.2002. FIR Ex.PN/2 was recorded at 8 p.m. on the same day and the special report reached J.M.I.C., Mansa, on the same day i.e. 22.11.2002 at 11.00 p.m. Cars, jeeps and scooters are available in villages. If a vehicle could be arranged to take Harvinder Singh PW4 to the hospital, a - 3 - Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 vehicle could also have been arranged to inform the police promptly. The reaching of the special report at 11.00 p.m. creates a suspicion that the FIR time is wrongly given. Bakhshish Singh PW3, the eye witness to the occurrence is related to deceased Gurlal Singh; both being first cousins (sons of maternal uncle). His testimony should not be taken into consideration, as he is an interested witness. Harvinder Singh PW4 the injured eye witness did not support the prosecution case, as he knew that it is a false case and rightly resiled from his statement. The motive for the commission of the offence cannot be believed. Marriage of Amarjit Kaur with deceased Gurlal Singh had taken place 15 years before the occurrence. About 2 years before the occurrence, deceased left Amarjit Kaur in her parental house, saying he was not ready to keep her, as she could not bear him children. Though two children had been born, but had died. It has not come in evidence of any of the witnesses, that for 13 years when they lived together, there was some sort of quarrel between Amarjit Kaur and deceased Gurlal Singh. Appellant was only the go-between (Vichola). The main grouse, if any, was on the part of the father and brother of Amarjit Kaur. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that FIR Ex.PN/2 in this case is so prompt, that itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of the offence is strong. Appellant Hakam Singh felt offended that deceased Gurlal Singh was not keeping Amarjit Kaur, who is a close relative of his (Hakam Singh’s). Amarjit Kaur being his brother-in-law’s daughter. - 4 - Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 Appellant Hakam Singh fired three shots. As per FSL report Ex.PAA, one of the Shaktiman cartridges used C/3, was fired from the right barrel of the 12 bore DBBL gun No.9451-94. No definite opinion could be given qua cartridges C/1 to C/2 due to punctured percussion caps and lack of sufficient individual characteristic marks. No dent could be made by the defence in the testimony of the sole eye witness Bakhshish Singh PW3. In fact he has corroborated the FIR. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The promptness in recording of the FIR, Ex.PN/2, in which the name of the appellant, weapon of offence and nature of injuries have been clearly spelt out, has gone a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. Occurrence took place on 22.11.2002 at 5.00/5.15 p.m. in Village Dodra, Police Station, Budhlada. Statement Ex.PN of Bakhshish Singh PW3 was recorded by Inspector Chuhar Singh PW6 at the police station. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PN/2 came into existence on the same day at 8.00 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Mansa, on 22.11.2002 at 11.00 p.m. It has come in evidence that the distance between the police station and the courts is 10 K.Ms. Recording of the FIR and sending of the special report is prompt. Apart from the promptness in recording of the FIR, the motive for commission of the offence is very strong. Appellant Hakam Singh was the mediator of his brother-in-law’s daughter (Sala’s daughter) by which she was married to deceased Gurlal Singh about 15 years back from the date of occurrence. Two years prior to the occurrence, deceased told Amarjit Kaur to go to her house, as she could not bear any child. She did have two children - 5 - Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 out of this wedlock, but both died. Appellant Hakam Singh took offence to this and this was the reason, that on the fateful day, he waylaid Gurlal Singh and shot him with his DBBL gun. As per FSL report Ex.PAA, cartridge C/3 was fired from DBBL gun No.9451-94, belonging to appellant Hakam Singh. Regarding the other two cartridges fired, no opinion could be given, as they had punctured percussion caps and lack of sufficient individual characteristic marks. The testimony of the eye witness to the occurrence Bakhshish Singh PW3, though related closely to Gurlal Singh deceased, Gurlal Singh being the son of his maternal uncle i.e. his first cousin, is cogent and inspires confidence. He has deposed categorically and clearly in favour of the prosecution and has corroborated the version put forward by himself in FIR Ex.PN/2. The other eye witness Harvinder Singh PW4, who was injured in the occurrence resiled, as he was won over by the accused, but in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he, along with Gurlal Singh deceased, was returning from the fields on 22.11.2002 at 5.15 p.m., when firing started and the pellets struck Gurlal Singh, who fell down. He also suffered an injury on his forehead. Thereafter he resiled and he was declared hostile. Going through his cross-examination, when he was confronted with his statement he had given under Section 161 Cr.P.C.to the police, he has admitted that Amarjit Kaur was married to Gurlal Singh deceased about 15 years back, but she was turned out of her house. No dent could be made in the testimony of Bakhshish Singh PW3. Dr. Kashmir Singh PW1, who performed the postmortem on the dead-body of Gurlal Singh, found the following injuries on his person: - “1. A lacerated wound 14 cm length on lateral aspect of right upper arm deltoid region- width of the wound was 3 cm at - 6 - Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 its anterior end, 5 cm in the middle, 7 cm at its posterior end. Depth of the wound was 2 cm in the middle. Anterior end of the wound was 10 cm below lateral end of right clavicle. Clotted blood was present. There was tattooing and blackening 0.75 cm around the margin of the wound at its anterior end. There was laceration of deltoid muscle, acromion process of right scapula bone was fractured. A foreign body appears to be metallic lodged in the muscle. Foreign body removed and collected in a vial No.1. There was corresponding hole in the shirt. 2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm on left lateral side of chest, 30 cm below lateral end of left clavicle. There was tattooing and blackening 0.5 cm around the margins of the wound. Clotted blood was present. Ninth rib visible through the wound which was intact. 3. A lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm on left lateral side of chest, 3 cm medial and below injury number 2, oval in shape. There was blackening and tattooing around the margin of the wound, 0.75 cm area at lateral margin, 0.25 cm on margin of the wound. Clotted blood was present. On probing, depth of the wound was 7 cm, track extending anterior medial side of chest. On exploration of wound, there were five black pieces appears to be of rubber lodged in the subcutaneous tissue. These five pieces removed and collected in a vial number 2. 4. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 2.5 cm on left lateral side of abdomen, oval in shape. This injury lie 3 cm below injury No.2 and 2 cm below injury No.3. There was tattooing and blackening 0.5 cm around lateral margin of the wound. Omentum & blood coming out through the wound. On probing wound opened in the abdominal cavity. - 7 - Criminal Appeal No. 909-DB of 2005 From the above injuries, it is seen that tattooing and blackening had taken place, meaning thereby that the DBBL gun was fired from a close range by appellant Hakam Singh. The medical evidence also corroborates the version put forward by Bakhshish Singh PW3. With the above discussion and observations, we are of the considered opinion that the murder of Gurlal Singh was committed by appellant Hakam Singh. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (L.N.MITTAL) January 13, 2009 JUDGE SKArora WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO - 8 -