Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. DECIDED ON : 9.5.08 Amrit Pal Appellant. VERSUS State of Punjab. Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Punj,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.K.Jindal,Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. JORA SINGH,J. Amrit Pal Singh son of Satnam Singh, has appealed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2000 in Sessions Case No. 60 of 25.10.1996, bearing First Information Report No. 83 dated 10.7.1996, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station G.R.P., Ludhiana, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 2 Maninder Bedi, Inspector, SHO, Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana on 11.6.1996 at about 9.45 P.M. while present in the Police Station had received a telephonic message from Surinder Sapna, resident of Sunder Nagar near Dhuri Line, that near Om Bakery, Rakesh Kumar was murdered by giving knife blows. Rakesh Kumar was shifted to Civil Hospital by Bhagwant Rai and Narinder Batra. On receipt of telephonic message, Maninder Bedi, Inspector along with the police party had gone to the spot. Bhagwant Rai complainant appeared before Maninder Bedi and reported that he was running factory in his house for making spare parts. He has two sons and three daughters. His elder son is Manoj Kumar and younger is Rakesh Kumar. At 8.35 P.M., he had gone towards Om Bakery and was present in front of Manku Complex and saw that Amrit Pal Singh had caught hold of Rakesh Kumar from his neck. Amrit Pal Singh and Satnam Singh were abusing Rakesh Kumar. At that time, Amrit Pal Singh had a knife in his hand. In the meantime, Narinder Batra son of Shri Dev Raj, owner of Om Bakery also came there. Amrit Pal Singh gave knife blow in the abdomen and flank of his son Rakesh Kumar. Satnam Singh was exhorting the co-accused (kill him should not go escaped today). They had raised an alarm “Bachao”, “Bachao”, then Amrit Pal Singh and Satnam Singh had fled away from the spot with their weapons. Electric light was on in front of Manku Complex. Amrit Pal Singh and his nephew Ram Narain had Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 3 exchanged hot words sometime ago. Due to this enmity, accused Amrit Pal Singh gave knife blows to Rakesh Kumar. On receipt of knife blows, Rakesh Kumar had succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Rakesh Kumar was shifted to Civil Hospital, where Doctor declared him as dead. Statement was read over and explained to Bhagwant Rai, who had signed in token of its correctness. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal First Information Report was recorded. Two police officials were deputed to guard the patient. Maninder Bedi Inspector alongwith the police party had gone to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Dead body of Rakesh Kumar was lying in the hospital. Inquest report was prepared. Narinder Batra and Pardeep Kumar had identified the dead body. After preparing inquest report, ASI Satinder Singh was deputed for post mortem examination. Maninder Bedi, Inspector, Investigating Officer alongwith the police party again came to the place of occurrence and blood stained earth was lifted and the same was made into the sealed parcel bearing the seal impression “MB”. Parcel was taken into police possession vide separate recovery memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After post mortem examination, clothes worn by the deceased were made into sealed parcel by the Doctors. Sealed parcel was produced before the Investigating Officer and the same was taken into police Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 4 possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. The case property was deposited by the MHC. On 13.6.1996, Amrit Pal Singh had surrendered in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Investigating Officer had gone to the Court. Accused was arrested formally in the present case with permission of the Court. Accused was remanded to police custody. On 14.6.1996, accused on interrogation suffered disclosure statement that he has kept concealed knife in the southern side of the part of Manjit Nagar under the heap of bricks. He has got the knowledge about the same and statement of the accused was recorded which was signed by him and attested by the witnesses. Accused got recovered knife from the specified place, then sketch of the knife was prepared. Knife was sealed with the seal bearing seal impression “MB” Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate recovery memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared. Satnam Singh accused was arrested from his house on 17.9.1996. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Vide order dated 11.10.1996 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, this case was committed to the learned Court of Session, Ludhiana for trial. After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State, defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the documents on the file, learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 5 found that a prima facie case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and he was charge sheeted accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and tendered certain documents. PW-1 Harminder Singh, Draftsman, prepared scaled site plan Ex.PA. PW2 Mr. M.B. Azad, Chief Inspector of Works Railway submitted that report Ex.PB to the effect that site is falling in Railway line. PW3 Head Constable Tarlochan Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PC. PW4. Doctor P.S. Sidhu had conducted post- mortem examination on the dead body of Rakesh Kumar. PW5 Raj Kumar Constable tendered his affidavit Ex.PG. PW6 Bhagwant Rai is the complainant and stated that his son Rakesh Kumar deceased on 11.6.1996 at 8.30 P.M., was present near Manku Complex. He was going towards Om Bakery. Amrit Pal Singh and Satnam Singh were sighted. They were abusing Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar had been caught hold by the accused. Amrit Pal Singh armed with knife gave blows to Rakesh Kumar. Narinder Batra, Proprietor Om Bakery was also present on the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. One day earlier, Amrit Pal Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 6 Singh had some altercation with his nephew Ram Narain. Rakesh Kumar was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where he had succumbed to his injuries. He lodged report with the police. On 12.6.1996 blood stained earth was lifted from the spot. PW7 Narinder Batra is the eye witness. He is supported the version of Bhagwant Rai complainant by saying that Rakesh Kumar was present near Manku Complex. Amrit Pal Singh armed with a knife and Satnam Singh were sighted. Amrit Pal Singh gave knife blows to Rakesh Kumar. PW8 Inspector Malkiat Singh had recorded formal First Information Report Ex.PH/1. PW9 DSP Gurmail Singh, reached the place of occurrence and got verified from the Railway Department as the place of occurrence was found within the jurisdiction of G.R.P.,Ludhiana. PW9-A SI Kashmira Singh was with the Investigating Officer. Amrit Pal Singh accused wsas interrogated by the Investigating Officer. As per disclosure statement, he got recovered weapon of offence. PW9-B Sub Inspector Mohan Singh stated that initially case was registered in Police Station, Civil Line, Ludhiana. Later on, case was transferred to G.R.P.,Ludhiana. Fresh First Information Report NO. 83/96 Ex.PW9/A was registered. Rough site plan Ex.PW9/B with correct marginal notes was prepared. Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 7 PW10 Inspector Maninder Bedi is the Investigating Officer. After the clouse of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations, levelled against them. Accused denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that Ram Narain, nephew of Bhagwant Rai was in service of Sain Dass Om Parkash brothers of Narinder Batra PW . Rakesh Kumar deceased was the employee of Narinder Batra. On 11.6.1996, at about 7.30 P.M. Ram Narain came to their shop at Manku Complex. Ram Narain picked up a quarrel over the purchase of goggles. Ram Narain went back with angry mood. About half an hour at about 8 P.M., Rakesh Kumar came to their shop and started abusing them. Rakesh Kumar was then about to assault Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh tried to run away from the spot. Rakesh Kumar had chased Satnam Singh and caused injuries to him. Rakesh Kumar would have surely killed Satnam Singh if he (Satnam Singh) had not taken effective defence. Satnam Singh was arrested by the police on the same night and was illegally detained there for five/six days. Mother of Amrit Pal Singh and wife of Satnam Singh had sent telegrams to the High ups regarding his illegal detention. One application was given to Ilaqa Magistrate regarding illegal detention of Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh was produced in the Court and was got Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 8 medically examined, as per orders of the Court. Case is false. In defence, Dr. U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, was produced. After hearing learned Public Prosecution for the State and the defence counsel and also from the perusal of the records, learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana opined that accused Rakesh Kumar was murdered by Amrit Pal Singh. Benefit of doubt was given to Satnam Singh and he was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Amrit Pal Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as stated above. Vide order dated 28.3.2000, leave to appeal was admitted. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. Appellant-accused had no motive to commit the crime. In fact, complainant party had a motive to implicate the accused- appellant because nephew of the complainant had some altercation with the appellant-accused. Ram Narain nephew of Bhagwant Rai after some altercation with the appellant- accused had went back. After half an hour at 8 P.M., Rakesh Kumar came to the spot and started abusing them and was about to assault Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh tried to run away from the spot. Deceased had chased Satnam Singh. In self defence appellant-accused had caused injuries to the deceased. DW1 Dr. U.S.Sooch had medically examined Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 9 Satnam Singh and had seven injuries on his person. According to the story, injuries were caused with a knife, but Doctor P.S.Sidhu, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana observed one injury on the person of Rakesh Kumar i.e. ´Incised wound 3” x 1/4” in a V shaped manner right limb of the V was larger i.e. 2” and the left limb of V was small i.e. 1”. It was present on the epigastrium area of abdomen ½” below xphisternun more on left side touching the lest clostal margin.” Injury noted by the Doctor was not possible with a knife. In fact, complainant was not present at the time of occurrence. Rakesh Kumar had been shifted to Civil Hospital, while leaving Rakesh Kumar in the hospital, complainant was not expected to visit the place of occurrence. Story is un- natural. In fact, there was a dispute regarding the purchase of goggles. Accused had no intention to commit the crime. To save Satnam Singh, appellant-accused had caused injury which was not repeated. No offence under Section 302 I.P.C., particularly when second accused namely Satnam Singh, was acquitted by the trial Court. At the most, offence punishable under Section 304 Part II is made out. The learned counsel, thus, requested to accept the appeal. Mr. V.K.Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent argued that occurrence is an admitted fact in view of the statement of the appellant- accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Main grievance of the appellant-accused was that Ram Narain, nephew of Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 10 Bhagwant Rai complainant, was the employee of Sain Dass Om Parkash brothers of Narinder Batra. At about 7.30 P.M., on 11.6.1996, Ram Narain had a dispute with the appellant- accused qua the purchase of goggles. Ram Narain went back, after some altercation with the appellant-accused. At about 8 P.M., Rakesh Kumar deceased came to the shop of the appellant-accused. Deceased had abused appellant- accused Amrit Pal Singh and Satnam Singh. Deceased tried to assault Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh was chased by the deceased and in self defence Amrit Pal Singh had caused injuries to Rakesh Kumar. In the absence of effective defence, Rakesh Kumar would have murdered Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh was illegally detained. Application was moved to the Ilaqa Magistrate, then he was produced in the Court and was medically examined, but the injuries noted on the person of Satnam Singh were found to be simple in nature by DW1 Dr. U.S.Sooch. No allegation of the appellant- accused how and with which weapon injuries were caused to Rakesh Kumar. As per Satnam Singh, Amrit Pal Singh had caused injuries to the deceased. So presence of Amrit Pal Singh at the time of occurrence is an admitted fact. As per defence version, only dispute is qua the presence of complainant. Secondly, whether the injuries were caused in self defence. The learned counsel, thus, requested to dismiss the appeal. According to the prosecution story, appellant- accused had given knife blows to the deceased. Occurrence Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 11 was witnessed by Bhagwant Rai and one Narinder Batra, whereas contention of the appellant-accused was that in self defence, injuries were caused. Doctor P.S.Sidhu, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Rakesh Kumar on 12.6.1996 and had noted one injury as pointed out above. Injury was on the vital part. Probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was immediate. Injury was with a sharp edged weapon. No suggestion to the Doctor that injury was possible as a result of fall. In defence, appellant-accused examined Dr. Sooch. As per doctor Sooch, Satnam Singh was examined on 18.6.1996 at 5.10 P.M. and noted the following injuries on the person of Satnam Singh:- “1. Bluish reddish contusion 3” x 2, ½” on the posterior lateral aspect of the middle of left calf. 2. Superficial abrasion ½” x ½” on the back of left elbow. 3. Red contusion 2” x 1” horizontal on the lateral side and lower part of left side of chest. 4. Heeled abrasion 1” x ½” on the lateral side of right forehead with scab peeled off and raw pinkish base. 5. Linear abrasion 2, ½” with black scab peeled of placed horizontally on the posterior medial aspect of lower 1/3rd of left forearm. Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 12 6. Two wounds 3/3” x ¼” and ½” x 1/4th” of one above another with scab peeled of and dark coloured blood at the base on the posterior aspect of middle 1/3rd of left fore arm. 7. Healed abrasion ½” x 1/3” with pinkish base on the mid front of left forehead. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. Duration of injuries No. 1 to 3 was about 24 hours, whereas the Duration of injuries No. 4,5,6 and 7 was within seven days. As per defence version, all the injuries were caused by the deceased to Satnam Singh on 11.6.1996 at about 8 P.M. Only grievance of the appellant-accused was that injury on the person of deceased was caused in self defence by Amrit Pal Singh. If seven injuries were caused to Satnam Singh at about 8 P.M. then question is how the duration of injuries No.1 to 3 was about 24 hours and how the probable duration of the remaining injuries was found to be within seven days. If all the injuries had been caused as per defence version, then Doctor was expected to report that probable duration of all the injuries on the person of Satnam Singh was within seven days. In cross examination Doctor Sooch admitted that injuries were possible by fall. As per M.L.R. (Ex.DA) injuries were shown to be simple in nature. Next contention of the defence counsel was that on the same day, Satnam Singh was arrested and was illegally Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 13 detained. Mother of Amrit Pal Singh gave telegrams. Application was also given to Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. As per order of the Court, Satnam Singh was medically examined, but the telegram, copy of which is (Ex.DCC) no where show that in self defence, Amrit Pal Singh had caused injuries to Rakesh Kumar, when Rakesh Kumar had attacked Satnam Singh. There is not a word in the telegram that with which weapon, Rakesh Kumar had caused injuries to Satnam Singh and in self defence, with which weapon Amrit Pal Singh gave injury. Injuries on the person of Satnam Singh as per Doctor were not with a sharp edged weapon. That means Rakesh Kumar was not armed with a sharp edged weapon. As per defence, Rakesh Kumar was alone. Because appellant-accused is doubting the presence of the complainant and eye witness at the time of occurrence and when deceased was not armed with deadly weapon then there was no idea to cause injury on the vital part with a sharp edged weapon. Satnam Singh and the appellant- accused could easily catch hold the deceased without causing injury. If any application was given to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, then copy of the same could easily be produced in defence. If the copy was not available, then relevant record could easily be summoned from the Court. When Amrit Pal Singh had caused injury to the deceased and death was on the spot, then it was very easy to send the complaints/telegram to different authorities to create defence. The story qua self defence is not reasonable one. In fact, Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 14 defence was created by self suffering injuries by Satnam Singh to save the appellant-accused. Plea of self defence was considered by the trial Court and the same was rightly rejected. Next allegation of the defence counsel was that the presence of Bhagwant Rai and Narinder Bata was doubtful. Narinder Batra has deposed because Ram Narain, nephew of Bhagwant Rai was an employee of Sain Dass Om Parkash. Bhagwant Rai had deposed being the father of the deceased, but no defence that Ram Narain was the employee of Sain Dass Om Parkash brothers of Narinder Batra. As per defence version, on 11.6.1996 at about 7.30 P.M.; Ram Narain had gone to the shop of the appellant-accused. There was some altercation qua the purchase of goggles. Ram Narain came back and then after half an hour, Rakesh Kumar had gone to the shop of the accused. No evidence on the file that Ram Narain was not keeping good health. In fact, Rakesh Kumar was stronger than Ram Narain. Ram Narain had some dispute with the appellant-accused, then Ram Narain was expected to visit the shop of the appellant-accused with a weapon to teach a lesson to them. Because there was a dispute qua purchase of goggles, then question is why Rakesh Kumar had gone to the shop of the accused at 8 P.M. No evidence that Ram Narain had a word with Rakesh Kumar qua the earlier dispute of goggles when Rakesh Kumar had no knowledge of the dispute of Ram Narain with the appellant-accused qua the purchase of goggles, then why Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 15 he (Rakesh Kumar) had gone to the shop of the accused. Ram Narain had a dispute with the appellant-accused, then he fully armed should have gone to the shop of the appellant-accused. Shop of the appellant-accused was in Manku Complex . There were number of shop near the place of occurrence. No respectable person appeared in defence to state that at 7.30 P.M. Ram Narain had a dispute with the appellant-accused. Ram Narain went back again at 8 P.M. Rakesh Kumar had a dispute with the appellant-accused and in self defence, appellant-accused had caused injury to Rakesh Kumar. If Rakesh Kumar had the intention to abuse the appellant-accused, then question is why no injury on the person of appellant-accused. No suggestion to the complainant and Narinder Batra that in fact, on 11.6.1996 at about 7.30 P.M., Ram Narain had gone to the shop of the appellant-accused. There was a dispute qua the purchase of goggles. Then Ram Narain came back and had a word with Rakesh Kumar and at 8 P.M., Rakesh Kumar had gone to the shop of the appellant-accused and had caused injuries to Satnam Singh. If in self defence, appellant-accused had caused injury to the deceased, then Amrit Pal Singh or Satnam Singh could easily appear in defence with the permission of the Court and depose on oath that in self defence, injury was caused to the deceased. Presence of PWs at the time of occurrence was natural. Story is genuine. Offence was correctly scrutinized by the learned trial Court. Before the present occurrence there was no Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 16 enmity amongst the parties. Without enmity, there was no idea to implicate the appellant-accused. Presence of Bhagwant Rai and Narinder Batra was natural because house of Bhagwant Rai was near the place of occurrence. Narinder Batra had a shop near the place of occurrence. No respectable person came forward in defence to state that Ram Narain was an employee of the brothers of Narinder Batra and deceased was an employee of Narinder Batra. Suggestion was given to Narinder Batra that after the occurrence he came to the spot. Meaning thereby, Narinder Batra came to the spot. The only dispute is whether he was present at the time of occurrence or came to the spot after occurrence. Narinder Batra did not notice any injury on the person of Satnam Singh. No defence that deceased was the employee of Narinder Batra. Narinder Batra was not inimical towards the appellant-accused. Nothing to disbelieve Narinder Batra. Suggestion was given to Bhagwant Rai that some other persons had lifted Rakesh Kumar and had shifted him to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. If Bhagwant Rai and Narinder Batra had not shifted the deceased to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and in fact, some other person had shifted the deceased to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Then there was no hitch to produce any respectable person to state on oath that he had shifted Rakesh Kumar to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. No question was put to the Doctor that Rakesh Kumar was not shifted to Civil Hospital by his father or Narinder Batra. Next suggestion was given to the complainant that Crl. Appeal No. 146-DB of 2000. 17 deceased was aggressor and had caused injury to Satnam Singh, but injuries noted on the person of Satnam Singh were simple in nature. MLR was procured simply to create the defence. If in self defence injuries had been caused to Rakesh Kumar, then name of Rakesh Kumar was expected to be mentioned in the telegram. But in the telegram, copy of which is (Ex. DZ), name of the deceased was not mentioned. No effort was made to summon the record from the Court that in self defence, Amrit Pal Singh had caused injury to the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that there was no motive or enmity to commit the crime. In fact, Ram Narain had a dispute with the appellant-accused when deceased had assaulted Satnam Singh, then in self defence injury was caused, but