Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 Date of decision: 4.4.2008 Gurmukh Singh ......Appellant v. The State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. HS Giani, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Mr. SS Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Judgment: The appellant Gurmukh Singh challenges his conviction and sentence for the murder of Hazoor Singh. Case of the prosecution is that on 8.1.1997 in the morning, Hazoor Singh, deceased had borrowed the tractor of Lal Singh and tiller of Gurbachan Singh. After completing the field work at 3.30 PM, Gurmej Singh PW5 son of Hazoor Singh, deceased was going alongwith Lal Singh to return the tractor at the Dera of Gurbachan Singh. On the way, accused Gurmukh Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 2 Singh, son of Dayal Singh, accompanied by co-accused Niranjan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Manjit Singh (who have been acquitted by the trial court) armed with lathis, whose Dera was nearby came and stopped the tractor. The appellant raised a lalkara that Hazoor Singh and his son be not allowed to pass through the rasta (passage) of which there was a dispute. Hazoor Singh was following the tractor. He advised the appellant to desist from stopping the tractor on which the appellant gave lathi blow on the head of Hazoor Singh rendering him unconscious, resulting in his fall to the ground. Jagtar Singh, brother of the deceased PW4 saw the incident and reached the spot. Gurdip Singh and Puran Singh also reached there. Jagtar Singh caught hold of Gurmukh Singh. In the process, Gurmej Singh PW5 was also given lathi blow by Niranjan Singh. Gurmej Singh also caused injuries to Harbhajan Singh and Niranjan Singh. Hazoor Singh was taken to the hospital and on receiving of message, ASI Jagdish Chander reached there and recorded the statement of Jagtar Singh at 7.15 PM, leading to registration of FIR. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan and took other steps of investigation. ASI Jagdish Chander died after 4/5 months of the occurrence and after completion of investigation, the accused was Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 3 sent up for trial. The injured Hazoor Singh was removed to PGI, Chandigarh, where he died after three days on account of head injury. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar who examined Hazoor Singh on 8.1.1997 at 4.55 PM and referred him to Civil Hospital, Karnal, PW2 Dr. RM Singh who conducted post mortem examination on 15.1.1997, PW3 Balkar Singh Patwari, who prepared site plan, PW4 Jagtar Singh, author of the FIR and eye witness, PW5 Gurmej Singh, another eye witness and PW6 ASI Jarnail Singh who proved the investigation. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and examined HC Satya Parkash to prove the record of earlier FIR No.6411 dated 2.11.1996 under the Excise Act against Gurmej Singh and Mehar Singh, FIR No.39 dated 19.1.1991 under the Excise Act against Balvinder Singh, FIR No.357 dated 4.9.1991 under the Excise Act against Hazoor Singh, FIR No.29 dated 11.1.1991 against Hazoor Singh under the Excise Act, FIR No.120 dated 27.3.1990 against Surjit Singh son of Hazoor Singh, FIR No.115 dated 9.4.1995 under the Excise Act against Surjit Singh, FIR No.214 dated 23.7.1984 under the Excise Act against Jeet Singh, FIR No.416 dated 20.11.1983 against Jagtar Singh and FIR Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 4 No.5 dated 1.1.1993 under the Excise Act against Hazoor Singh. DW2 Bharat Bhushan Patwari was examined to prove the location of the land. He also medically examined Niranjan Singh at about 5.15 PM on 8.1.1997 and found following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound 1x1/2 cm into deep to skull bone on forehead in middle part, 2” above the base of nose, margins ill defined, face stained with blood, clotted blood present on face and clothes. Swelling in wound area 1-1/2” x 1” Advise X.ray forehead AP and lateral view. 2.Lacerated wound 3-1/2x1/2 cm x ½ deep oblique on left parietal region, hair stained with blood, margin ill defined, wound is 3 inches above the left pinna, swelling in wound area is 2-1/2 x 1-1/2”. Advised X-ray left parietal region AP and lateral view. 3.Diffuse swelling 3”x4cm on back of left arm in lower one third part. Bruise 2”x2-1/2 cm colour reddish. No abrasion complaining of pain in swelling. Advised X-ray lower half part of arm, left side AP and lateral view. 4.Abrasion 1x1 cm on back of index finger of left hand on first phalanx second abrasion 1x1/2 cm at distance of 1 cm in first phalanx of index finger on back of left hand, colour reddish, no bruise slight Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 5 swelling, clotted blood was present wound. 5.Abrasion 2x1 cm at base of right hand thumb on back, colour is reddish. No bruise Clotted blood was present on wound. 6.Complaining of pain in left gluteal region on back. No bruise, no abrasion no swelling. 7.Complaining of pain in long finger of left hand, no bruise, no abrasion, no swelling.” He stated that injury Nos. 4, 5,6 and 7 were simple. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be by fall. Injury Nos. 3, 4 and 7 could also be by fall. He also medically examined Harbhajan Singh and found following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound 1x0.4 cm x 04 cm deep on back of left ear cartilage in middle part, margins ill defined, clotted blood present on ear wound, slight swelling present. 2. Bruise 2x1/2x1” on lateral side of right shoulder joint, colour reddish, no abrasion complaining of pain in shoulder during movement at joint. Advised x-ray of shoulder AP and lateral view.” Dr. RM Singh PW2 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Hazoor Singh on 15.1.1997 and found following injuries:- “1. A stitched wound vertically placed on left parieto Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 6 temporal area of the size of 20 cms. 2.A stitched wound on the right temporo parietal area of the size of 18 cm. 3.Bed sores over the sacral area of the size of 7x4 cms. 4.An abrasion on the dorsum of the right hand 3x2 cm. Injuries were ante mortem in nature.” In his opinion, the death was on account of head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW4 Jagtar Singh supported the version in the FIR and stated that the injured being in critical condition, was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. PW5 Gurmej Singh corroborated the version given by PW4 Jagtar Singh. He also deposed that an operation was also performed at PGI. The injured remained in the PGI for three days. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant while acquitting the co- accused. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 7 was no motive and the occurrence took place all of a sudden. Grievance,if any, could be of the deceased against whom several cases under the Excise Act had been registered. Seven injuries were found on the person of Niranjan Singh accused and two injuries were found on the person of Harbhajan Singh, the other co-accused and the said injuries were not fully explained by the eye witnesses, which renders their testimony unreliable. It was also submitted that there was only single injury and, thus, case will not fall under section 302 IPC. We do not find any merit in the contention raised. From the evidence of PW4 Jagtar Singh, brother of the deceased, it is clear that Gurmukh Singh raised lalkara and gave lathi blow on the head of Hazoor Singh, deceased. This version is fully supported by PW5 Gurmej Singh, son of the deceased. The said PWs have also mentioned that there was dispute of passage between the accused party on the one hand and Gurbachan Singh on the other. The time of occurrence is 3.30 PM. The identity of the accused was known to the witnesses. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital. The doctor sent the message and version of PW4 Jagtar Singh was recorded in the hospital itself. Testimony of relation witnesses cannot be held to be partisan. They Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 8 will be the last persons to screen the real accused. There is no material discrepancy in the version given by PW4 Jagtar Singh and PW5 Gurmej Singh rendering them unreliable. Inadequacy or absence of motive is not significant when there is direct evidence. Non explanation of injuries which were simple did not affect the version of the prosecution which was otherwise reliable. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansingh AIR 2001 SC 2328. As regards the plea that offence will not fall under section 302 IPC, we do not find any substance therein. The appellant having caused injury with lathi on the head with force making him unconscious and death having taken place as a result of the said injury, which was sufficient to cause death, intention to cause death could be inferred. In any case, intention to cause injury which is sufficient to cause death itself, is enough to bring the case within the purview of section 302 IPC. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45 , Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala,AIR 1966 SC 1874 and State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Criminal Appeal No.163 DB of 1999 9 Singh,AIR 2004 SC 1264. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are liable to be affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 4, 2004 (S.D.Anand) 'gs' Judge