Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary ...

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused Mukhtiar Singh (A-1) and Gurdial Singh (A-2) and deceased Harnek Singh were real brothers. The family consists of eight brothers altogether. Deceased Harnek Singh along with his wife Tej Kaur and son Gurmail Singh (PW-4) were living jointly with one of his brother Amar Singh (PW-3). Gurdev Singh and Dalbara Singh, two other brothers were residing together whereas the others were residing separately in their respective houses located in their agricultural lands. Dalip Singh, father of Gurcharan Singh (A-3) and Mithu Singh (A-4) were residing separately. Dalip Singh is stated to have entered into an agreement to sell his house to Babu Singh, Balak Singh and their sons but the same could not be fructified into regular sale as Harnek Singh had interfered in the deal. The accused accordingly developed grudge as against Harnek Singh over his unwarranted interference in the sale transaction.

3. On 6.5.1989 about 7.00 p.m. Amar Singh (PW-3) and deceased Harnek Singh were going towards their houses in the fields whereas Tej Kaur and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) were already present in the house. The deceased Harnek Singh and Amar Singh (PW-3) saw all the four accused standing outside the house of Mukhtiar Singh(A-1). Mukhtiar Singh(A-1) was armed with a Sumewali Dang, both Gurcharan Singh @ Charna (A-3)and the appellant were armed with a gandasa each. Gurdial Singh (A-2) shouted a lalkara that Harnek Singh should be taught a lesson for interfering in Dalip Singhs property deal and he should be killed, on which the rest of the three accused inflicted several injuries on Harnek Singh. Amar Singh (PW-3) raised an alarm, which attracted Tej Kaur and Gurmail Singh to the spot and they too witnessed the incident. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Harnek Singh was first removed to his farm house and then to the Civil Hospital, Longowal by Amar Singh (PW-3). It was about 9.10 p.m. Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-

6) having noticed the critical condition of Harnek Singh immediately referred him to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-6) sent information to SHO, Police Station, Longowal at about 9.25 p.m. Harnek Singh, however, died soon after reaching the Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Amar Singh (PW-3) along with his brother Gurdev Singh left the hospital and reached the police station, Longowal at about 1.15 a.m. on 7.5.1989 and lodged First Information Report. Gurmail Singh (PW-4) was at the hospital near the dead body. The special report sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, Sangrur reached at 5.00 a.m. The police on the completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against Gurcharan Singh @ Charna (A-3) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the other accused were charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution in order to establish its case relied on the evidence of Dr. K.S. Raikhy (PW-1), who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body and found six injuries thereon, three incised and three lacerated; Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4), the two eye witnesses; ASI, Malikat Singh (PW-5), the Investigating Officer and Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-6) who first received the injured at Civil Hospital, Longowal.

6. The High Court upon re-appreciation of evidence found that there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. The High Court also reversed the finding recorded by the trial court as regards the presence of the eye- witnesses as it came to the conclusion that there is no reason to doubt the presence of Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) at the scene of occurrence. The High Court took the view that the presence of eye-witnesses was absolutely natural and they had good reason for being present at the scene of offence. The High Court relied upon the First Information Report in which it has been mentioned that the accused were armed with gandasas and dangs. The High Court found the DDR (Exh. DX/1) is the photocopy of the original which was not produced in the court. Be it noted that the prosecution had closed its evidence on 22.9.1993 and the statements of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had thereafter been recorded and it is only thereafter the accused moved an application to recall Amar Singh (PW-3) and Iqbal Rai (PW-7) who had recorded the DDR (Exh. DX/1) which was allowed by the trial court. The application was ordered about 4 years after the closure of evidence. The High Court upon appreciation of the evidence, however, found that the so-called entry made in the DDR (Exh. DX/1) by itself may not make any difference to the prosecution case inasmuch as the evidence of Iqbal Rai (PW-7) clearly reveals that the First Information Report had been recorded first and entries in the DDR were made thereafter. The High Court also found that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted by sharp cutting weapons which finds support from the medical evidence. The High Court in conclusion held:

Haematoma was present.

3. Incised wound 3 cms x 2 cms x 1 cm on the posterior lateral aspect of left forearm 2 cms above the wrist joint. Dark blood clot was present. On dissection the underlying bone was intact haematoma was present.

Haematoma was present.

18. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were not sufficient to cause the death of the victim and, therefore, the common intention to kill is not evident and therefore, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. We are unable to agree. The evidence of PW-3 and 4 the direct witnesses is consistent and they had deposed that the appellant inflicted injuries with gandasa to kill the deceased. The fact that the appellant inflicted injuries with the deadly weapon itself shows that he had also shared the common intention. In order to convict the person vicariously under Section 34, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in such overt act inflicting deadly injuries. It is enough if the material available on record discloses that the overt act of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of common intention. The common intention shared by the appellant is evident from the fact that he was armed with deadly weapon and inflicted two injuries on the victim. All the accused attacked the deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the common intention to murder the deceased. In such a situation the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant on the victim and whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death pales into insignificance. The appellant was not a curious onlooker and had not accompanied the assailant who gave a deadly blow out of any ideal curiosity. Each one of them is liable for that act of murder as if the act of murder was done by each one of them. It is true that if the High Court had adopted this reasoning even Mukhtiar Singh (A-1) and Gurdial Singh (A-2) could not have escaped from conviction. However, we do not propose to express any firm opinion on that aspect of the matter since there is no appeal by the State against their acquittal.

19. For the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed.