Crl. Appeal No. 329-DB of 2002 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 329-DB of 2002. Date of Decision : Sept. 10 th, 2010 Manjit Singh ...... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 10 th, 2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, the accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:- Manjit Singh, accused-appellant and Surjit Singh (deceased) were Sewadar and Head Sewadar respectively in Gurdwara – 'Khare Da Khalsa” (hereinafter referred to as “the Gurdwara”) situated in village Jagatpur. Both of them were residing Crl. Appeal No. 329-DB of 2002 2 .. in the premises of the Gurdwara. On September 19 th, 1999, at about 3/4 A.M., Kabal Singh son of the deceased (PW-4) along with Satnam Singh, Manager, went to the Gurdwara. Both of them saw the accused-appellant putting wooden logs underneath the cot of the deceased and setting him afire. The deceased was sleeping on the cot at that time. They tried to extinguish the fire, but could not save the deceased. The accused-appellant managed his escape. 3. The motive behind the occurrence was that Manjit Singh wanted to become Head Sewadar of the Gurdwara in place of the deceased. 4. Kabul Singh (PW-4) after consoling himself proceeded to lodge the report to the Police. Malhar Singh, Sub Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station Sarhali, met him on the way. He recorded statement of Kabul Singh (Exhibit PB). He appended his endorsement (Exhibit PB/1). First Information Report (Exhibit PB/2) was recorded. The Investigator (PW-8) reached the spot and on inspection of the place, recovered half burnt cot, a few half burnt wooden logs and one bowl of brass, which were taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PN). Inquest proceedings (Exhibit PD) were conducted. The dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, for post mortem examination. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused-appellant was filed under Section 302 IPC for commiting the murder of Surjit Singh (deceased) on September 19 th, 1999. 6. The prosecution supported its case by examining Dr. Brij Mohan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran (PW-1), Dr. Gurnamjit Rai, Lecturer, Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Amritsar, (PW-2), Darbara Singh, Head Constable (PW-3), Kabal Singh – complainant (PW-4), Balbir Kaur (PW-5), Sukhdev Raj, Constable (PW-6), Dilbagh Singh, Head Constable (PW-7) and Malhar Singh, Sub Inspector – Investigator (PW-8). 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating Crl. Appeal No. 329-DB of 2002 3 .. circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. He denied his complicity and pleaded innocence and did not produce any witness in his defence. 8. The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties have been appraised. 9. Dr. Brij Mohan (PW-1) along with Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW- 2) conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found that the same was completely charred beyond recognition. It was emitting smell of desi ghee. Left arm, left side of chest and left leg was also completely charred. Right arm bones were burnt from wrist onwards. The bone pieces were scattered. He proved Post Mortem Report (Exhibit PE). 10. The dead body of Surjit Singh was also sent for examination to Government Medical College, Amritsar. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, Lecturer of Forensic Medicines Department, Government Medical College, Amritsar (PW-2) examined the dead body and also opined that the death occurred on account of compression of vital organ (brain) as a result of ante-mortem injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also proved his report (Exhibit PG). 11. From the medical evidence, it is proved to the hilt that Surjit Singh was firstly given serious injuries and thereafter was set afire. Kabul Singh (PW-4) in his deposition has stated that he along with Satnam Singh went to the Gurdwara and saw the accused putting wooden logs underneath the cot of his father, on which he was sleeping, and set him afire. He along with Satnam Singh tried to extinguish the fire, but could not save the deceased. It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant and the deceased were Head Sewadar and Sewadar respectively in the Gurdwara and were residing together. The accused-appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted that he was servant of the deceased. In other words, he was working as Crl. Appeal No. 329-DB of 2002 4 .. a junior Sewadar to the deceased in the Gurdwara. Kabul Singh (PW-4) was cross-examined at length, but no flaw could be pointed out in his testimony by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, which could shake the basic eye witness account. The statement of this witness has also been corroborated fully by the medical evidence. 12. Another important point, which supports the eye-witness account is that Dr. Brij Mohan (PW-1) has specifically stated that the dead body was emitting smell of desi ghee at the time of post mortem examination. It shows that Surjit Singh was set on fire by putting desi ghee on his body. The accused-appellant was residing in the premises of the Gurdwara itself. There could be no one else who could set the deceased on fire, except the accused-appellant witnessed by Kabul Singh (PW-4). In view of this, the evidence of Kabul Singh (PW-4) inspires confidence. There is nothing concrete or substantial on record to castigate his version or condemn his evidence and take a different view from the one taken by the learned trial Judge. 13. Balbir Kaur (PW-5) was examined by the prosecution to prove that she witnessed the accused-appellant causing injuries to the deceased before setting him afire but it failed. She deposed that she learnt about the incident later on that accused-appellant caused injuries to the deceased with dang. This Court, in view of the stance taken by her, shall not treat her as an eye witness but as set out above there is other sufficient and convincing evidence against the accused-appellant. 13. In upshot, the evidence on record clearly establishes the commission of the offence by the accused-appellant. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Judge do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 15. Manjit Singh, accused-appellant, was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. His bail/surety bonds Crl. Appeal No. 329-DB of 2002 5 .. are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 10.09.2010 som Whether Referred to Reporter : Yes/No