Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Devinder Singh APPELLANT VERSUS State of Punjab RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present:- Shri J.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate with Shri N.S.Swaitch, Advocate for the appellant. Shri D.S.Brar, D.A.G. Punjab. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment/order of the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar dated 19.9.1998 whereby he convicted Devinder Singh son of Nirmal Singh and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for six months. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PG of Charanjit Kaur widow of Nirmal Singh. She stated, that she is a resident of Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -2- Village Chalaki. Her husband died 4 years back. She has two sons namely Devinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and two daughters. Devinder Singh was married to Surinder Kaur. Her younger son Sukhwinder Singh was still a bachelor. Her elder son Devinder Singh was a vagabond and was a person of quarrelsome nature. He had sold some land of his share and wasted the money and now was intending to sell his remaining share. He also wanted to grab her share, forcibly. She stated that she liked her younger son Sukhwinder Singh, more than her elder son. Devinder Singh used to quarrel with his wife also. On 7.4.1997 at about 6 p.m., Devinder Singh started beating his wife and tried to put her clothes on fire. She and her daughter-in-law Surinder Kaur shouted for help. Her neighbours Kesar Singh and Pritam Singh came to their house. They persuaded Devinder Singh to cool down and made him lie on a cot. Thereafter they went away. Her younger son Sukhwinder Singh after tethering the cattle went to bed. After sometime the daughter-in-law of the complainant fearing her husband for some reason came and sat next to her. They started talking to each other. At about 11 p.m. Devinder Singh armed with a Kirch (knife) came there hurling abuses and threatened that now he would kill Sukhwinder Singh and teach him a lesson. On hearing the voice of his brother, Sukhwidner Singh got up from the cot. Devinder Singh caught Sukhwinder Singh from his arm and both the brothers started grappling with each other. Devinder Singh gave a blow with his knife to Sukhwinder Singh, which hit him on the right side of his chest. Thereafter Devinder Singh ran away. Kesar Singh and Harpal Singh came to the spot. Blood was oozing out of the chest of Sukhwinder Singh. Complainant alongwith Kesar Singh and her daughter-in-law, took Sukhwinder Singh in a Maruti van to the Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -3- Government Hospital, Morinda. Sukhwinder Singh died in the hospital. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex.PG/2 was registered on 8.4.1997 at 2 a.m. and the special report reached the C.J.M., Rupnagar, on the same day at 8 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr.S.K.Kataria PW-1, Constable Jugal Kishore PW-2, Dr.R.S.Bhatia PW-3, Sardara Singh PW-4, Charanjit Kaur PW-5, Joginder Singh PW-6, Inspector Pritam Singh PW-7, Sikander Singh PW-8, Constable Amarjit Singh PW-9, Constable Gurmail Singh PW-10, Constable Rajinder Singh PW-11 and HC Mohan Singh PW-12. Surinder Kaur wife of the appellant appeared as DW-1. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is no motive for the commission of offence. Nothing has come on record that Charanjit Kaur the complainant (PW-5) liked her younger son Sukhwinder Singh, more than the appellant Devinder Singh. There is no land in the name of Charanjit Kaur PW-5, which she could give to the deceased. No quarrel had taken place. The Kirch (knife) used in the offence did not have human blood, as the F.S.L. Report Ex.P5 stated that the blood was disintegrated. In fact, what happened on the day of occurrence was unfortunate. Appellant came back to his house at about 11 p.m. On seeing his wife and deceased Sukhwinder Singh in a compromising position, he got angry. Thereafter he caught hold of Sukhwinder Singh. There was a Kirch (knife) in the hands of deceased Sukhwinder Singh which Devinder Singh to save himself tried to grab, but it accidentally hit deceased Sukhwinder Singh. Appellant did not have any intention to commit the murder of his younger brother. Surinder Kaur wife of appellant Devinder Singh was cited as a prosecution witness. Charanjit Kaur PW-5 also stated in her statement, that Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -4- Surinder Kaur was present at the time when the occurrence had taken place. The prosecution did not produce her as a witness, as they knew that she would tell the truth. Appearing as DW-1, Surinder Kaur stated, that whatever happened, it was purely by accident. There was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of his real brother Sukhwinder Singh. She also stated that her brother- in-law Sukhwinder Singh was a person of bad character. He had evil eyes on her. She reported the matter to her mother-in-law Charanjit Kaur PW-5, who did nothing to stop him. On the unfortunate night, at about 10.30 p.m. She went to hand over a glass of milk to Sukhwinder Singh and he put his Kirch (knife) on her neck and tore her clothes and raped her. Learned counsel for the State has argued that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The occurrence took place on 7.4.1997 at 11 p.m. and the special report Ex.PG/2 was in the safe hands of the C.J.M., Rupnagar on 8.4.1997 at 8 a.m. This itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence was that as per mutation No.270 (Ex.PH/1) as shown in Jamabandi for the year 1991-92, 1/12th share of the land of Nirmal Singh was mutated in favour of Charanjit Kaur PW-5. This was the land for which appellant Devinder Singh was not happy with his mother and wanted that she give it to him. He was creating a nuisance of himself in the house. He suspected that his mother would give her share of land to deceased Sukhwinder Singh, whom she liked more. A mother would never falsely implicate her own son, for the murder of her other son and let the actual culprits go scot free. The statement of DW-1 Surinder Kaur wife of appellant Devinder Singh has been recorded after 1-1/2 years. She was won over by appellant who was no other Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -5- person than her husband. In her statement she has stated that she was raped, but no medical examination was done. No torn clothes have been brought on record. No witness has come forward to state that she was molested by deceased Sukhwinder Singh. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The occurrence in this case took place on 7.4.1997 at 11 p.m. On the basis of her statement Ex.PG, Charanjit Kaur PW-5 who is no other person than the mother of both the appellant and the deceased, F.I.R. Ex.PG/2 was registered on 8.4.1997 at 2 a.m. and the special report reached the safe hands of C.J.M., Rupnagar, on the same day at 8 a.m. The statement of Charanjit Kaur PW-5 was recorded in Village Chalaki, which is at a distance of 4 miles from the police station. All the proceedings, qua the murder of Sukhwinder Singh were done by the Investigating Officer, Inspector Pritam Singh PW-7, at night time. There is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. This itself goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is very strong and weighs heavily against the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no land with Charanjit Kaur to be given to her younger son does not cut much ice. As per Jamabandi Ex.PH/1 and Mutation No.270, as shown in Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 (Ex.PH/1) of inheritance of Nirmal Singh, 1/12th share out of a total land of about 12 acres was sanctioned in favour of Charanjit Kaur widow of Nirmal Singh PW-5. This was the land which appellant was having and wanted his mother to give to him. In her testimony before the Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -6- Court, Charanjit Kaur PW-5 has stated that she liked her younger son Sukhwinder Singh more than the appellant. Appellant was a vagabond and a person of quarrelsome nature. He had sold some share of his land before the occurrence and had wasted all the money. It was natural for Charanjit Kaur PW-5 to be in her own house at 11 p.m. in the night, she is a natural witness. To a suggestion put to Charanjit Kaur PW-5, she gave the following answer, which is as under :- “It is incorrect to suggest that I did not witness the murder of my son Sukhwinder Singh and actually Devinder Singh had found Sukhwinder Singh in a compromising position with his wife and in a rage he had attacked him and gave fatal injuries to him.” Surinder Kaur was cited as a witness by the prosecution, but since she had been won over by the accused as her own husband was in trouble, thus she came into the witness-box as DW-1 to put up a false story to save him. She stated that deceased was a person of bad character. On the day of occurrence she went to him at 10.30 p.m. to hand over a glass of milk. Deceased had a knife in his hand. He put the Kirch (knife) on her neck. He tore her clothes and thereafter forcibly raped her. In the meantime her husband Devinder Singh reached there. Both the brothers started grappling with each other and after about 15 minutes, she saw Sukhwinder Singh lying injured. Deceased Sukhwinder Singh had been misbehaving with her for the last 2-1/2 years. Suridner Kaur DW-1 in her statement on oath has stated, that she was raped. If she had been raped, the Investigating Officer or her husband would Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -7- have got her medically examined. Further, she has stated that deceased Sukhwinder Singh was misbehaving with her for the last 2-1/2 years. No witness has been brought into the witness-box to state to this effect. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has stated as under :- “Q. Do you want to say anything else? Ans. On the day of the occurrence I was out of the house. When at about 11 p.m. I came to my house I found my wife in compromising position with my brother Sukhwidner Singh. She was caught hold by Sukhwinder Singh under the threat of Kirch (knife). When I came and saw I could not control myself and I grappled with my brother. During the scuffle when he tried to gave me injury with the Kirch (knife), I snatched the same from him and caused him injury with the said Kirch (knife). However, I had no intention to kill him. In order to save the family from dis- repute, I have been implicated in the case with a concocted version.” The occurrence has been confessed by the appellant, but he has stated that he did not have any intention to commit the murder of his brother. Taking the statement of Charanjit Kaur PW-5 and also the statement of Dr.S.K.Kataria PW-1 into consideration, it is clear that the appellant had the intention to inflict such injuries on the person of the deceased that he would die. Criminal Appeal No.581-DB of 1998 -8- The seat of injury being in the chest. If he had only wanted to injure the deceased for misbehaving with his wife, he could have injured him on some non-vital part of his body. The statement of Surinder Kaur DW-1 has been recorded after 1-1/2 years. She had in this period been won over by her husband. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE ( JORA SINGH ) August 12, 2008 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO