Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Kiran Anand Lall, J.—The appellant stands convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 459 IPC and the sentence awarded to him is as under:-

The prosecution case as disclosed in the statement of Raghbir Singh (complainant) which forms basis of the FIR, Ex.PG, is that he along with his three brothers, including Gurmail Singh (deceased), had been residing in their house, located in the fields, outside the boundary of Village Khurana. Gurmail Singh had employed the appellant, Balbir Singh @ Beera (to be referred as Balbir Singh), as a servant, in the month of'' Harh''. The appellant was in the habit of talcing liquor, and Gurmail Singh used to object-toit. About 1-1/2 month prior to the occurrence, the tubewell-motor of Gurmail Singh got burnt as water leaked therein, due to the carelessness of the appellant when he was under the influence of liquor. Gurmail Singh gave him scolding, whereupon, he left his employment. After few days thereof, he asked the Sarpanch of the village, Piare Lal, to get his accounts settled with Gurmail Singh. Piare Lai talked to Gurmail Singh, in the matter. At the asking of Gurmail Singh the accounts were ultimately settled by Madan Pandit, Nand Pandit, and Hardam on 24.10.1991. After doing the needful, all of them went to the house of Gurmail Singh, at 11.00 a.m. where he gave three bags of paddy to the appellant, in pursuance of the settlement arrived at. Thereafter, all of them, including the appellant and the deceased (Gurmail Singh), left the house, at about 12.30 p.m., after taking tea there, In the evening, at about 5.00 p.m., Raghbir Singh complainant''s son Jagdev Singh @ Jangli, and Madan Pandit brought Gurmail Singh to his house, in a drunken condition, and laid him on a cot, in the ''baithak'' (drawing room). Gurmail Singh''s wife Mohinder Kaur, and brother Raghbir Singh were present at the time. At about 8.30 p.m. when both of them were sitting in front of the baithak and were talking to each other. me the appellant came, went inside the baithak, and caused injuries on the left side of head, neck and chest of Gurmail Singh, with a spade. On seeing this, they made roula "Bachao-Bachao", whereupon Jeet Singh (another brother of Gurmail Singh) come running, and shouted that the appellant shpuld not be allowed to escape. The appellant gave spade-blows on Gurmail Singh''s both legs also, and fled away, after wielding the spade towards Mohinder Kaur etc. He even took out cash from the pocket of Gurmail Singh. The latter died at the spot. After instructing Jeet Singh to guard the dead-body. Raghbir Singh went to Village Khurana and brought Bachan Singh Panch, Jeet Singh Panch, Hardial Singh, and some other respectables of the village from there, after informing them about the occurrence. Thereafter, he was go the police station, along with Bachan Singh, and reported the matter to the police, whereupon Inspector Barjinder Singh and other police officials accompanied them to the spot. The Inspector inspected the spot, lifted blood from there, and took it into possession, along with the bloodstained bed sheet, vide memos, Exs.PH and PJ respectively, after converting those into two sealed parcels. The cot on which the body was lying was also taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PK. Inquest report of the dead body (Ex.PE) and the site plan (Ex.PL) of the place of occurrence were prepared Post-mortem of the body was got conducted from Civil Hospital, Sangrur, and clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PM.

On being produced before him by Karnail Singh Sarpanch, Inspector Barjinder Singh arrested the appellant on 16.1.1992. During investigation, the latter got recover a spade (Ex.P4), having a blood-stained blade, from the fields of Mohinder Singh, where it was lying underneath a heap of parali, in pursuance of a disclosure statement (Ex.PN) made by him. The Inspector prepared its sketch, Ex.PO, and took it into possession vide memo Ex.PR, after converting it into a sealed parcel. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, Ex.PQ, was prepared. Scaled map of that place, Ex.PE, was also got prepared. The blade of the spade was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for examination, and vide FSL report, Ex.PV, the blood available thereon was found to be of human origin.

On completion of investigation, the appellant was challaned.

On receipt of the case in his court, by way of commitment, learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellant under Sections 459 and 362 IPC. The latter having pleaded not guilty to the same, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.

In order to substantiate their case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses viz. PW1 Dr. Prabhat Kumar, PW2 Natha Singh, PW3 Mohinder Kaur, PW4 Niranjan Singh, PW5 Hardam Singh, PW6 Gurnam Singh, PW7 Inspector Barjinder Singh, PW8 Jagdev Singh, PW9 Constable Nachhatar Singh, PW10 Constable Sukhdev Singh, PW11 Constable Amrik Singh, and PW12 Raghbir Singh, in their evidence.

Out of the remaining witnesses, Babu Singh, Bachan Singh, Jeet Singh, Karnail Singh, and Madan Singh Were given up as having won over, vide statements dated 24.8.1993,12.7.1996,7.12.1998,28.5.1999, respectively, of the learned Public Prosecutor.

After the close of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all the prosecution allegations. He also added that he had never remained in the employment of Gurmail Singh (deceased) and further pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case.

No evidence was led in defence.

We have heard arguments addressed by the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully considered the evidence on record.

The prosecution case is based not only on the ocular testimony of PW12, Raghbir Singh complainant, and PW3 Mohinder Kaur, but finds support even from the evidence of PW4, Naranjan Singh, who had reached the spot when the appellant was coming out of the baithak of the deceased, after inflicting blows on him. PW12 is the brother of the deceased while PW3 is his wife. By the very nature of their relationship with the deceased, their presence near the place of occurrence which was the house of the deceased, cannot be doubted. The presence, of PW4, Niranjan Singh, also stands well explained because, as stated by him, he heard the roula being made by PW3 and PW12 and also saw the appellant coming out of the baithak of the deceased, when he was coming towards the latter''s house in order to find out the availability of his tractor and reaper. A vivid description of the entire occurrence, was given by PW3 and PW12, by deposing as to how they saw the appellant giving successive blows to the deceased, with spade, Ex.P4, after entering the baithak, all of a sudden. Had the deceased been in his sense, one could have expected him to have attempted to save himself by running out of the baithak. But, as the evidence on record shows, he was not in a position to do so, as he was heavily drunk and had been brought home, in a state of excessive intoxication, by PW8 Jagdev Singh @ Jangli and Madan Pandit. This fact finds mention not only in the testimony of PW8 Jagdev Singh but also in the evidence of two more witnesses PW3 Mohinder Kaur and PW12 Raghbir Singh. The former (PW8) deposed that having seen Gurmail Singh lying in a drunken condition, in the fields, he and Madan Lal lifted him, from there and brought him home where he was laid in the baithak, on a cot. The testimony of this witness went totally unchallenged as he was not cross-examined at all. The same finds corroboration from the evidence of PW3 and PW12 also, both of whom deposed that the deceased was brought home, in the evening, in a drunken condition, by Jagdev Singh and Madan Pandit. In fact, it is clear from the testimony of PW12 Raghbir Singh that Gurmail Singh had, in fact, lost consciousness (due to excessive liquor), by the time he was brought home. Due to such condition, he, of course, could not have saved himself from the blows inflicted by the appellant. PW4 Niranjan Singh, too, had seen the appellant coming out of the baithak of the deceased and he also saw that at that time, Mohinder Kaur and Raghbir Singh, were making ''roula''. He and Babu Ram had chased him, in order to catch hold of him, but he succeeded in fleeing away. As deposed to by PW3, Mohinder Kaur, the room where the occurrence took place had two doors and both were lying open. This fact also appears to have felicitated the smooth exit of the appellant from the room, after inflicting successive blows to the deceased.

It may be noted that the suggestion put to PW3, in her cross-examination, was that the deceased, who was badly drunk, had, in fact, received injuries due to a fall on the reaper and he was brought to home, in an injured condition, by Madan Pandit and Jagdev Singh (PW8). By putting this suggestion, the prosecution case to the extent that the deceased was so heavily drunk that he had to be brought home by others including Jagdev Singh, PW8, stood admitted by the appellant. The other fact suggested to PW3 that the deceased had received injuries by a fall on a reaper, it may be mentioned, remained totally unsubstantiated as no evidence was led in support thereof. Here, it may also be taken note of that the appellant, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. did not refer to either of the said facts which had been put to PW3 in cross-examination, on his behalf. The simple plea put forward by him was that he did not commit murder of Gurmail Singh and the latter had never employed him as his servant.

Still another fact which goes in favour of the prosecution is the promptness in the lodging of the FIR. The occurrence had taken place at 8.30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged by the brother (PW12) of the deceased, within just 2-1/2 hours, in the police station which was at a distance of about 3 kms. from the place of occurrence, and before that he had informed Bachan Singh and Jeet Singh panches and Hardial Singh, etc., also about the occurrence, in the village. It may be mentioned that just as unexplained delay in the lodging of FIR tends to create a doubt in the genuineness of the prosecution case, promptness in doing so is a fact which gives initial advantage to the prosecution, particularly, in a case of the type in hand wherein there was only one assailant and the witnesses who saw him giving blows to the deceased were the wife (PW3) and brother (PW12) of the deceased. Needless, to say that such close relations would be the last persons to leave the real culprit and instead, substitute and innocent person, as the appellant claims himself to be, in his place.

Another piece of evidence which lends further support to the prosecution case is that the appellant had got recovered the weapon of offence viz. Spade (Ex.P4), which had a blood-stained blade, in pursuance of a disclosure statement (Ex.PN) made by him before PW7 Inspector Barjinder Singh, in the presence of PW12 Raghbir Singh.

The appellant, in fact, had a motive also, against the deceased. As is to be found in the testimony of PW3, PW5 and PW12, he was nursing a grudge against him as he had not only removed him from employment, but had scolded him also and had even not settled him accounts till he brought the matter to the notice of the sarpanch of the village, Piare Lal, and even after settlement of accounts, he gave him just three bags of paddy in lieu of his wages. In any case, the question of motive pales into insignificance in view of the above discussed convincing ocular evidence regarding the causing of fatal-injuries by the appellant to the deceased, who was not in his senses due to intake of excessive liquor and was, thus, lying in a helpless condition, in his ''baithak''.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The verdict of conviction/sentence recorded u/s 302 IPC by the trial court is based on sufficient convincing evidence available on record. The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.