Jarnail Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2005 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing their appeals and affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 8.1.2004 in Sessions Trial under Sections 302, 148, 149, 307, 364, 342, 506, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the `Arms Act') awarding life imprisonment and other sentences.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are, that an First Information Report (in short the `FIR') was lodged on 24th June, 2000 on the basis of a statement of Darshan Singh (PW-4) that he was living with his sister Gurcharan Kaur for the last 3= years at village Nandpur as his nephew Gurjeet Singh, son of his sister Gurcharan Kaur, had been murdered by Rattan Singh and Balbir Singh, close relatives of Gurcharan Kaur in 1997. On 23rd June, 2000 at about 10.00/11.00 p.m., when Darshan Singh (PW-4) was having his meal at his tube well after preparing his fields for plantation of paddy crop, about 30 persons armed with fire arms came in five vehicles (cars and jeeps) from the side of village Dadiana. They started shouting and firing shots in the air. They came to the tube well and caught hold of Darshan Singh (PW-4) and injuries were inflicted on him with the butts of rifle on his head, chest and back. Migrant labourers (migrated from Bihar) sitting on the tube well also suffered injuries. There had been a dispute on the land as the same was purchased by Inderjit Singh (Accused) 2 from Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Rajwinder Kaur. Inderjit Singh wanted to take possession of the land from the complainant party forcibly.

4. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered under Sections 342/336/323/506/148/149/120-B IPC and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. On 27th June, 2000 statement of Babu Lal (PW-7) was recorded. He deposed that he was taken alongwith Jaldhar injured, with Sikandar Rai (PW-6) and they were taken to Ambala Railway Station in a vehicle and had been given Rs.900/- for meeting the expenses to travel back to Bihar. However, they came back to Mohali and informed the other migrant 3 labourers about the incident and, also, that he was suspicious that Jaldhar had been killed. Thus, on the basis of the said statement, Sections 307 and 364 IPC were added to the previous sections. Again on 4th July, 2000 statement of Sikander Rai (PW-6) was recorded. He had stated that Jaldhar died on the spot but in order to avoid the hue and cry of the labourers, the assailants had taken the dead body under the pretext to get him proper treatment and the dead body was thrown in the canal at about 2.30 a.m. in the night. He had been threatened that, in case, he disclosed the factum of the death of Jaldhar he would also be killed. Thus, on the basis of his statement, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was also added.

6. Being aggrieved, all the convicted persons preferred six appeals before the High Court which were heard together. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 allowed the Criminal Appeals filed by Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh against whom the charge of conspiracy had 5 been framed and dismissed other four appeals and maintained the conviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court.

16. Gurcharan Singh (PW-18) met the informant Darshan Singh (PW-4) before lodging the FIR and the fact of conspiracy was not disclosed by Gurcharan Singh (PW-18) and Darshan Singh (PW-4). The fact of conspiracy has not been mentioned in the FIR. Hakam Singh, the other witness on this issue has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the 10 High Court was justified in discarding the part of the prosecution case relating to conspiracy. However, in the fact situation of the present case, acquittal of the said two co-accused has no bearing, so far as the present appeal is concerned.

7. Against the said common judgment and order of the High Court, Inderjit Singh (Accused), the purchaser of the land in dispute from Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Smt. Rajwinder Kaur preferred the Special Leave Petition before this Court and it stood dismissed. Kanwal Preet Singh did not prefer any Special Leave Petition. The other remaining convicted persons filed this appeal.

12. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the High Court came to the conclusion that the statement of Gurcharan Singh (PW-18) in respect of the fact of hatching a conspiracy by Balbir Singh and Gurdip Singh, at the bus stand Bassi Pathana on 21 st June, 2000 at 7.30/8.00 p.m. was not worthy of credence. Gurcharan Singh (PW-18), a chance witness could not explain under what circumstances he was present at the bus stand at the said time.

284). But in the instant case, the facts are not the same. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the 17 courts below on the issue of identification of dead body also does not call for any interference.

27. In view of the above, we find no exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.