Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs The State Of Punjab And Anr. Etc.

1. Around   1.45   pm   on   27.12.1988,   First   Information   Report No.244 came to be registered by Sub­Inspector Kaka Singh (PW5) of   Police   Station   “Kotwali”   of   Patiala   District   of   the   State   of Punjab on the basis of information given by one Shri Jaswinder 1 Singh (PW3).  From the narration in the FIR, it appears that the incident   which   eventually   culminated   in   the   death   of   Gurnam Singh   could   have   simply   passed   off   as   yet   another   incident   of road rage but for the death of Gurnam Singh.   According to the FIR, around 12.30 p.m., an incident occurred at the traffic light of   Battian   Wala   Chowk   in   front   of   the   State   Bank   of   Patiala, Patiala City.  Jaswinder Singh (PW3), Avtar Singh (PW4) and the deceased Gurnam Singh were travelling in Maruti Car No.CH I 8422   driven   by   the   deceased.     Both   the   accused   herein   were travelling by vehicle No.PAD 6030.  A dispute arose on the right of way between the accused and the deceased.  In the process the first   accused   who   is   a   cricketer   of   some   fame   got   out   of   his vehicle, pulled the deceased out of his vehicle and inflicted fist blows.  When PW3 tried to intervene, the second 1 accused herein got  out   of   the   vehicle   and gave fist blows to  PW3.   Thereafter, they removed the keys of the car of the deceased and fled away from the scene of occurrence.  PW3 and PW4 took Gurnam Singh who was “in a state of unconsciousness” by a rickshaw to a hospital, known as Rajendra Hospital where the doctors announced that 1 It must be mentioned here that though the FIR clearly mentioned the name of first accused, the name of second accused was not mentioned. He was only described as a clean shaven man. 2 Gurnam Singh was dead.

3. Case   was   registered   under   Sections   304/34   of   the   Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as “IPC”) against the first accused and un­named second accused.

4. Around   3’O   Clock,   PW5   reached   Rajendra   Hospital   along with PW3.  PW5 prepared the inquest report, which was attested by PW3 and PW4.  The dead body of Gurnam Singh was sent for post­mortem examination.  At about 3.30 p.m., PW3 to PW5 went to the scene of occurrence where PW5 prepared rough site plan. At 4.30 p.m., post­mortem examination over the dead body was conducted   by   PW2.     A   copy   of   the   FIR   was   received   by   the concerned Magistrate admittedly around 5.30 p.m.

7. In   the   background   of   the   abovementioned   facts,   a   final report (charge­sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,   1973   (hereafter   referred   to   as   “CrPC”)   dated 06.03.1989 came to be filed on 14.07.1989, (i.e. 4 months after its preparation) under Section 304 IPC, only against the second accused exonerating the first accused.  On 13 October 1989, the case   was   committed   to   Sessions   Court,   Patiala   by   Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala resulting in the registration of Sessions Case No.79/89.  A charge against A2 under Section 304 Part­I   IPC   was   framed   on   25.09.1990   in   Sessions   Case   No.79. During the course of the trial, the Sessions Court after recording the evidence of PW3 thought it fit by its order dated 30.08.1993 to   summon   the   first   accused   also   to   stand   trial   exercising   its power under Section 319 CrPC.

9. On   20.08.1994,   charges   were   framed   against   both   the accused.     Charges   under   Section   304   Part­I   IPC   were   framed against both the accused in case arising out of the FIR No.244. Charges under Section 302 IPC against first accused and charges under Section 302/34 IPC against second accused were framed respectively in complaint case for causing the death of Gurnam Singh.   Charges under Section 323/34 IPC were framed against both the accused for causing hurt to PW3.   Both the cases were consolidated vide order dated 20.08.1994.

10. In   order   to   establish   the   guilt   of   the   accused,   the prosecution   examined   five   witnesses   and   exhibited   various documents.2   PW3 and PW4 are said to be eye­witnesses to the 2 Inquest Report as Ex.PH, Site Plan as Ex.PT; recovery memo of certain articles as Ex.PU; application to collect the result of Pathologist as Ex.PV; FIR Ex.PQ; Statement of PW3 Jaswinder Singh as Ex.DC; Statements of PW4 Avtar Singh as Ex.DG, Ex.DD, Ex.DE; report under Section 173 CrPC as Ex.DH. 6 offence.     PW1   and   PW2   are   doctors   connected   with   the   post­ mortem examination of the dead body of Gurnam Singh.  PW5 is the Sub­Inspector who registered FIR.

13. The matter was carried in two appeals to the High Court by the State and also by the complainant.  The High Court reversed the   acquittal  and   found   both the accused guilty  under  Section 304 Part­II and 304 Part­II read with Section 34 IPC respectively for causing the death of Gurnam Singh.  Apart from the above, A­ 2 was also found guilty for an offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW3.

23. The undisputed fact is that Gurnam Singh was declared to have been brought dead to the Rajendra Hospital around 12.45 pm   on   the   fateful   day.     According   to   the   prosecution   (FIR), Gurnam Singh received fist blows from A­1 around 12.30 pm and became unconscious.  The FIR is conspicuously silent about any physical attack by A­2 on Gurnam Singh.

(iii) the inconsistencies with regard to the number of vehicle by which the accused were travelling and which one of the accused was driving the vehicle are immaterial. Therefore, the High Court opined that they are trustworthy witnesses.

PW­3 deposed at that point of time as follows:­ “The   accused   present   in   Court   Rupinder   Singh   was   not known to me prior to the occurrence.” Again, he was examined on 16.8.1995 at the joint trial of both the sessions cases against both the accused herein.   In the chief examination, he stated;

And further as follows:­ “Thereafter  Rupinder  Singh (Sandhu) accused came out from the   Gypsy   and   he  started   causing   me   injuries   with   fist blows.    Rupinder  Singh   (Sandhu)   gave   fist   blows   on  the  left inside of my chest and on the left side of my forehead.” The   relevant   portion   of   the   cross   examination   reads   as follows:­ “I stated in Ex. PQ that thereafter Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) came out from the Gypsy.  Attention of the witness has been drawn to Ex. PQ where name of Rupinder  Singh (Sandhu) has not been mentioned.     The narration of that the clean shaven man came out of the vehicle.   I stated in Ex. PQ that Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) gave fist blows on the left side of my chest and on the left side of my forehead.  Attention of the   witness   has   been   drawn   to   Ex.   PQ   where   the   portion ‘attacked’   by   Rupinder   Singh   (Sandhu)   have   not   been mentioned.   Narration is that Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) gave fist blows to him.

28. We   shall   first   deal   with   the   case   of   the   second   accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu because, in our opinion, his case can be decided without examining any one of the common submissions made on behalf of the accused.

Admittedly, at no point of time a test identification parade was held to establish the identity of the clean shaven man to be A­2.     The   only   material   on   record   to   connect   A­2   with   the offences is the evidence of PW3 and PW4 at the trial where they deposed that A­2 is that clean shaven person who was present along with A­1 on the date of the incident.

We   therefore,   set   aside   the   Judgment   of   the   High   Court insofar as A2 is concerned.

34. We now examine each one of the above questions. 23 To hold A­1 guilty of causing the death of Gurnam Singh, it must be proved that (i) he inflicted fist blows on Gurnam Singh as alleged by the prosecution; and (ii) the injuries resulting from the fist blows caused the death of Gurnam Singh.

37. We   shall   now   examine   the   tenability   of   the   above submissions.

In our opinion, the logic adopted by the accused suggesting the   possibility   of   the   PWs   3   and   4   being   planted   witnesses   is untenable.

43. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Sessions Court was wrong and the High Court was right (though the reasons are not well articulated) in believing the presence of PWs 3 and 4 at the time   of   the   commission   of   the   offence   along   with   deceased Gurnam   Singh.     We   must   hasten   to   add   that   from   the   above finding   it   does   not   follow   that   their   entire   evidence   is unimpeachable.

46. PW­2   in   the   post­mortem   report   did   not   give   any   opinion regarding the cause of the death of Gurnam Singh.  On the other hand, he recorded as follows:

49. In view of the lack of clarity in the opinion, the prosecution time and again sought for a clarification of the opinion.  On two occasions, i.e. on 31.1.89 and 3.2.89, PW­1 declined to give any further clarification and communicated as follows:

xxx xxx xxx In any case, the Board has not stated that death was the result   of   the   head   injury   or   death   was   the   result   of   cardiac condition or death was the result of head injury coupled with the   cardiac   condition   or   death   was   the   result   of   head   injury which led to the cardiac condition.” and finally held:

made in Exhibit PA.

“Deposition   of   PW   1:   After   perusal   of   the   record   and   the discussions   held,   opinion   was   given   which   is   Ex.   PA. According to Ex. PA the death in this case was attributed to the effects of the head injury and cardiac arrest. However, the head injury in itself could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.” On the face of the above evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is the subdural hemorrhage which caused the death of Gurnam Singh and not cardiac arrest.

61. We must also mention here that the  de facto  complainant moved an I.A. No. 50523 of 2018 praying that the content of a CD be received as additional evidence, along  with the CD allegedly containing some interview given by the first accused to some TV 43 channel.     The   said   CD   is   said   to   contain   certain   statements which   would   go   in   the   opinion   of   the  de   facto  complainant   to prove the guilt of the accused.

In our opinion, all that is avoidable for the reason: even if it is assumed that the first accused admitted to his participation in the   occurrence,   (a   fact   which   we   have   already   concluded independent of his own confession alleged in the TV show) in the light of the medical evidence on record, he cannot be held guilty of causing the death of Gurnam Singh.     We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the application.   Such admissions, if any do not help improve the case of the de facto complainant. 44

63.  The net result of all the above discussion is that the first accused cannot be held to be responsible for causing the death of Gurnam Singh. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is required to   be   set   aside   and   is   accordingly   set   aside.     The   material   on record leads us to the only possible conclusion that we can reach that the first accused voluntarily caused hurt to Gurnam Singh punishable under Section 323 IPC.

64. The   next   question   is   what   would   be   the   appropriate punishment for such an offence.   Section  323 IPC stipulates a punishment   of   imprisonment   of   either   description   for   a   term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/­ or with both.  In the circumstances of the case having regard to the facts that (i) the incident is 30 years old; (ii) there is no  past  enmity   between  the accused and the deceased; (iii) no weapon   was   used   by   the   accused;   and   (iv)   the   background   in which   it   happened,   we   are   of   the   opinion,   a   punishment   of imposition of fine of Rs.1000/­ would meet the ends of justice in this case.

65. In view of the foregoing, we allow the appeals of the accused as indicated above and dismiss the appeal of the complainant.