IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 Dated of Decision:- July 27, 2009 Sukhdev Singh ....APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Sh. T.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Satinder Singh Gill, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 6.11.2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby he convicted Sukhdev Singh son of Ajit Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Sukhdev Singh was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo one month R.I. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 Ranjit Singh alias Pappu son of Santokh Singh was also charged with Sukhdev Singh, but the learned trial Court in its wisdom acquitted him. The State has not filed any appeal against his acquittal. We are left with only the appeal of Sukhdev Singh son of Ajit Singh. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PL of Pritam Singh given to Ravinder Singh ASI in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar at 10.40 p.m. Pritam Singh stated that he is a resident of Village Tanana. He has three brothers and two sisters. The youngest of the brothers and sisters is Amrik Singh. Their land is situated at Village Gulgarh, on the east of Village Ghoge. On 25.11.1996, he along with his father Banta Singh and brother Gurdip Singh after working in the fields were coming back to their Village Tanana via Village Ghoge. It was at about 5.15 p.m. Gurdip Singh was ahead, while Pritam Singh and their father were coming behind him. Near the turning point of Village Ghoge, they saw Ranjit Singh @ Pappu along with his relative, whose name they came to know afterwards as Sukhdev Singh son of Ajit Singh. He was an employee with the Punjab Police, standing on the kacha path. The accused stopped Gurdip Singh and asked him to arrange a bottle of liquor for them. Gurdip Singh replied that he did not have any knowledge from where liquor was available. On this, Ranjit Singh @ Pappu got angry and told Gurdip Singh to get liquor. Gurdip Singh again replied that he was not in a position to arrange liquor for them. Ranjit Singh told his relative Sukhdev Singh, that Gurdip Singh is not obeying them and he should be taught a lesson. Sukhdev Singh pulled out a pistol, which was hidden in his pant on the left side and fired at the 3 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 forehead of Gurdip Singh, with the intention to kill him. The bullet hit the forehead of Gurdip Singh, who fell down. Thereafter both Sukhdev Singh and Ranjit Singh ran away. Gurdip Singh was admitted in the hospital at Ajnala and then taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Both Pritam Singh and Banta Singh knew Sukhdev Singh, as he usually came to see his relatives. They saw him working in Village Ghoga along with Ranjit Singh @ Pappu. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PL/2 was recorded on 25.11.1996 at 11.25 p.m. at Police Station Lopoke and the special report reached the S.D.J.M., Ajnala, on 26.11.1996 at 8.00 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Ashok Chanana PW1, HC Narinder Singh PW2, Rishi Ram Draftsman PW3, Gurbhinder Singh Inspector PW4, C.Manjit Singh PW5, ASI Ashok Kumar PW6, Kulbir Singh PW7, Pritam Singh PW8, Banta Singh PW9, ASI Ravinder Singh PW10 and C. Pippal Singh PW11. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded false implication. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that appellant Sukhdev Singh was not known to complainant Pritam Singh PW8, as he has stated in his statement Ex.PL and FIR Ex.PL/2 and also in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Court where he again said that he did not know Sukhdev Singh earlier, but came to know later on that it was Sukhdev Singh, who fired at his brother. Similarly Banta Singh PW9 has also stated, that they came to know the name of Sukhdev Singh later on. 4 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 There is an unexplained delay of 15 hours between the occurrence and the special report reaching the S.D.J.M., Ajnala. This delay was being utilized to falsely implicate appellant Sukhdev Singh. There is no motive for the commission of the offence. Nobody would kill a person for the sake of one bottle of liquor. If the appellant did want to have the liquor, he could have gone himself to the village and got the bottle. There is no previous enmity between the parties, as they did not know each other. If we take the case of the prosecution to be truthful, it is a case of a sudden fight over a bottle of liquor. The murder was not premeditated and the motive is frivolous. At the most, the case of the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that in his statement Ex.PL, Pritam Singh has stated that he and his father knew Sukhdev Singh, because he usually came to see his relatives in Village Ghoga. There is no delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at 5.15 p.m. on 25.11.1996 and FIR Ex.PL/2 came into existence at 11.25 p.m. on the same day. The special report did not reach the S.D.J.M. thereafter, as it was night time and it was delivered on the next day at 8.00 a.m. Appellant Sukhdev Singh was known to both Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9, as his name figures prominently in FIR Ex.PL/2. Both Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9, the eye witnesses to the occurrence, are natural witnesses. They were coming back to their village from the fields. This was the path they took everyday while 5 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 coming back from the fields. Appellant Sukhdev Singh wanted a bottle of liquor and on Gurdip Singh refusing to oblige him, he shot him in the head by the appellant, with a .9 mm pistol he had with him. The report Ex.PB of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory has concluded, that .9 mm empty collected from the site was fired from the pistol recovered from appellant Sukhdev Singh. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Occurrence had taken place at 5.15 p.m. on 25.11.1996 and statement Ex.PL of Pritam Singh was recorded at 10.40 p.m. on the same day by Ravinder Singh ASI, the Investigating Officer. Name of appellant Sukhdev Singh figures in FIR Ex.PL/2 and also in the ruqa. Pritam Singh PW8 has categorically stated, that he knew appellant Sukhdev Singh, as Sukhdev Singh used to come to Village Ghoga to meet his relatives. The fields of Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9 are adjoining to Village Ghoga and they had seen appellant Sukhdev Singh. He was recognized by both the eye witnesses Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9 and his name was categorically stated in FIR Ex.PL/2. FIR Ex.PL/2 came into existence on 11.25 p.m. on 25.11.1996 at Police Station Lopoke and the special report reached the S.D.J.M., Ajnala on 26.11.1996 at 8.00 a.m. There is no delay in lodging the FIR and also the special report reaching the S.D.J.M., Ajnala, It was night time and it was in the early morning that the special report was delivered. It has come in the evidence of Pritam Singh PW8, that on Gurdip Singh being shot, he was first taken to the Civil Hospital, Ajnala and then to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. It is at Guru Nanak Dev 6 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 Hospital, Amritsar, statement Ex.PL of Pritam Singh was recorded. The distance between the place of occurrence and Ajnala, as stated by the learned counsel is more than 20 K.Ms. The motive for the commission of the offence was that appellant Sukhdev Singh wanted a bottle of liquor from Gurdip Singh, but Gurdip Singh deceased refused to arrange. This infuriated the appellant and fired a .9 mm pistol shot at the deceased. The CFSL report Ex.PB has stated, that the empty recovered from the spot was fired from .9 mm pistol. The pistol was recovered from appellant Sukhdev Singh. This .9 mm pistol is the service revolver of appellant Sukhdev Singh. Statements of both the eye witnesses Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9 have gone unrebutted. They have corroborated each other and they get corroboration from the medical evidence as propounded by Dr. Ashok Chanana PW1. The post mortem report Ex.PA states, that one bullet was fired, which hit the forehead of the deceased and the bullet went through and through his head and came out from the backside of the head. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that at the most the appellant could be convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. There is no previous enmity between the parties, but a frivolous dispute of appellant wanting a bottle of liquor from Gurdip Singh deceased and on Gurdip Singh refusing to arrange it, appellant got angry and fired from his .9 mm pistol. In FIR Ex.PL/2, it is stated by Pritam Singh PW8 as under: - “On this, Ranjit Singh @ Pappu got annoyed and said to my brother Gurdip Singh to bring liquor from anywhere. My 7 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 brother Gurdip Singh said that from where he would arrange liquor as he does not know from where it is available. On this Ranjit Singh alias Pappu said to Gurdip Singh in anger that you bring it from anywhere. Then my brother said that from where I should bring? Then Ranjit Singh said to Sukhdev Singh, a relative standing nearby that if he does not obey, then he should be taught a lesson and shoot him. On this, within my and my father’s view, Sukhdev Singh, who is relative of Ranjit Singh alias Pappu immediately took out pistol from his dub of his pant fired straight on the forehead of Gurdip Singh with an intention to kill him. On receiving the shot, my brother fell on the ground”. Further it has been stated as under: - “ Sukhdev Singh in connivance with Ranjit Singh shot my brother in anger because they compelled my brother to make arrangement of liquor and my brother refused to bring liquor for them”. It is clear from FIR Ex.PL/2 and the statements of both the eye witnesses Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9, that everything happened at the heat of the moment and the crime was not premeditated. Both the parties did not know each other well. Pritam Singh PW8 and Banta Singh PW9 have seen appellant Sukhdev Singh, when he came to meet his relatives. There was no previous enmity. The fight was over a bottle of liquor. Appellant, when he fired from his .9 mm pistol at the forehead, intended to kill Gurdip Singh, but it was done at the heat of the moment as already discussed above. Conviction of appellant Sukhdev Singh son of Ajit Singh is modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. 8 Criminal Appeal No. 84-DB of 2001 Accordingly, his sentence is modified/reduced from life imprisonment to ten years R.I. Appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the widow of the deceased. In default he shall undergo one year R.I. Sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act shall remain intact as already awarded by the learned trial Court. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. With the above discussion and observations, appeal is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) July 27, 2009 JUDGE SKArora WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO