Baldev Singh vs State of Haryana

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 3.2.1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which Baldev Singh accusedappellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to suffer two years'' rigorous imprisonment. The other two coaccused Ranjit Singh and Angrej Singh, who were also charged under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, were acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving them the benefit of doubt.

Baldev Singh appellant has assailed the judgment/order of the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 3.2.1994.

Let the brief facts of the case be stated first. Takhat Singh father of the deceased Jasbir Singh alias Kala Singh had taken the land of Kachhroli Society (hereinafter called ''the Society'') in the area of village Mehamadpur, adjoining Kabri Road. He had joined with him PW3 Virsa Singh also for the cultivation of that land. There is another piece of land of the society which is situated at a distance of 1 kms from that land. The land of Baldev Singh accusedappellant adjoins the land of the society situated on the Kabri Road. The dera of Baldev Singh and Angrej Singh accused is situated at a distance of 3 killas from Kabri Road. Baldev Singh had demolished the Dol of the land which had been taken by Takhat Singh on lease and had sold the earth of that land. Jasbir Singh now deceased had objected to it and they had exchanged hot words. This quarrel had taken place twice before the occurrence. However, a compromise was got effected between them at the instance of the Panchayat.

On 14.3.1992 Virsa Singh, PW3, Sukhwant Singh PW6 and Jasbir Singh (now deceased) went on a tractor from village Mehmadpur to the land of the society at about 12 noon. Sukhwant Singh PW started ploughing the land with the tractor while PW3 Virsa Singh started working with the spade on the same land. Jasbir Singh laid on the cot in front of the kotha of the tubewell which was at a distance of half a killa from the place where they were working. At about 2.00 p.m. PW3 Virsa Singh and PW6 Sukhbir Singh saw Baldev Singh accused armed with a Gandasa, Angrej Singh armed with a lathi and Ranjit Singh accused armed with a Neja, standing near the cot of Jasbir Singh. On seeing them standing near the cot of Jasbir Singh, both of them started moving towards them. Ranjit Singh and Angrej Singh exhorted Baldev Singh accused, by saying, that Kala was laying on the cot and they would not again get opportunity to kill him. On hearing so Baldev Singh accused gave a Gandasa blow on the neck of Jasbir Singh and then all the accused with their respective weapons ran towards the dera of Baldev Singh. Both the PWs chased them up to a distance of half a killa but thereafter, they returned back out of fear. Jasbir Singh succumbed to his injuries at once as his neck had been cut. Virsa Singh PW stayed at the spot while Sukhwant Singh went to the PoliceStation, Sadar, Panipat to inform the police, after visiting his village Mehmadpur. Before reaching the PoliceStation, Sukhwant Singh PW met the Assistant Sub Inspector Amar Dass PW10 near Kabri School on Mehmadpur Road which is at a distance of about 3 kms from the place of occurrence. Sukhwant Singh PW6 gave his statement Ex.PH which was recorded by Amar Dass Assistant Sub Inspector PW10 and Sukhwant Singh PW signed it by admitting that statement to be correct. Amar Dass ASI made endorsement Ex. PH/1 upon it and sent the same to the PoliceStation for registration of the case upon which formal FIR Ex.PH/2 was recorded by Parkash Chand Assistant Sub Inspector whose signatures he identified. Amar Dass ASI PW10 along with Sukhwant Singh PW6 went to the spot on the tractor and reached there at 4.45/5.00. At the spot 2530 persons including women, were present and were weeping. He prepared inquest report Ex.PB and wrote application Ex.PB/1 for requesting the doctor to conduct the post mortem examination on the deadbody of Jasbir Singh. He got the dead body of Jasbir Singh photographed from PW8 Ashok Kumar, Photographer. He lifted bloodstained earth from the spot and also took into possession bloodstained Charpai, pair of shoes and some ropes (Baan) cut from the cot, vide memo Ex. PQ after making them into separate sealed parcels, attested by Mukhtiar Singh and Sahib Singh witnesses. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PR with correct marginal notes. Statements of Jhirmal Singh, Jagtar Singh, Virsa Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Sahab Singh were also recorded by him.

Badan Singh Sub Inspector PW11, SHO of Police Station, Sadar, Panipat, reached the sport at 6.30 p.m. and took over the investigation from PW10 Amar Dass ASI. He sent the dead body to General Hospital, Panipat through constables Ramesh Kumar and Brij Pal at about 7.15 p.m. He recorded the statement of Dalbir Singh constable and verified the facts of the case.

On 15.3.1992, at about 8.30 a.m. Dr. Mahesh Parkash PW1, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Panipat conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jasbir Singh alias Kala son of Takhat Singh, resident of village Mehmadpur, aged about 35 years, and found the following injuries on his person :

"Neck was separated by an incised wound and attached to the body on the left side by skin of 12 cm. The wound was starting below the thyroid cartilage on the left side going upward below the mastoid 3 cm below the right ear and 4.5 cm. below the occiput posteriorly going to the left. The underlying muscles trachea, esophagus and carotid vessels (on both sides) were incised in the same plane throughout the wound. The cervical vertebrae and spinal cord were incised in the same level, clotted blood was present in trachea and wound. The length of the wound was 39 cm. (all around the neck)."

The doctor opined that the cause of death was injuries to the vital organs (big vessels and cervical cord) leading to shock, haemorrhage and death and all the injuries were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. He next opined that the time between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem examination was 12 to 48 hours. He proved Ex.PA carbon copy of the postmortem report and Ex.PA/1 the diagram showing the location of the injuries. On 23.3.1992 at police request Ex.PC, he opined that the injury on the person of the deceased could be caused with Gandasa Ex.P5. He further opined that the injury on the neck of the deceased could be possible if he was lying on his left side i.e. right side exposed to the assailants. He also stated that death in this case could have taken place at about 2.00 p.m. on 14.3.1992.

PW11 Badan Singh Sub Inspector on 15.3.1992 at the spot took into possession clothes of the deceased vide memo Ex.PT which were produced by Brij Pal and Ramesh Kumar constables sealed into a sealed parcel with the seal of MP. He recorded statements of Ramesh Kumar and Brij Pal constables and handed over the sealed packet to the Moharrir Head Constable on the same day on return to the PoliceStation.

Sub Inspector Badan Singh PW11 was present in village Mehmadpur along with witnesses Dalip Singh and Balbir Singh on 20.3.1992. He received secret information there that Baldev Singh and Ranjit Singh were present at their dera. He along with witnesses went to the dera of the accused where Baldev Singh and Ranjit Singh were also present. He apprehended them. At that time Ranjit Singh accused was having in his possession Neja Ex.P. 6. Its rough sketch Ex.PJ was prepared and was taken into possession vide memo EX.P.I., attested by the witnesses. Baldev Singh accused on interrogation disclosed that he had kept concealed Gandasa in the Prali lying inside the wheat field and could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.PK was reduced into writing which was signed by him and attested by the witnesses. Thereafter he led the policeparty and got recovered Gandas Ex. P.5 after removing prali, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL after making it into a sealed parcel with the seal of BSR. Before its possession was taken its rough sketch Ex.PM was prepared. He further prepared site plan Ex.PM/1 of the place of recovery of Gandasa and recorded the statements of Balbir Singh and Dalip Singh. The case property was deposited with the MHC with seals intact.

On 25.3.1992 Badan Singh Sub Inspector recorded the statement of Balbir Singh Patwari and on 28.3.1992 he recorded the statement of Mahabir Moharrir Head Constable and Surinder Kumar constable. He searched for Anrgej Singh accused, could not arrest him and then he put Parkash Chand ASI on duty to arrest Angrej Singh accused but he was also unsuccessful. Ultimately, Angrej Singh accused was arrested on 10.6.1992 from his dera. On 9.6.1992, resolution of Kachroli Cooperative Society about the auctioning of the society land in favour of Takhat Singh Ex.PO and Ex.PN photo copy of the lease deed were produced which he took into possession vide memo Ex.PP. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PU and report of the Serologist Ex.PU/1 and completion of the investigations, challan was put in the Court and the case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, vide his order dated 7.8.1992.

Baldev Singh appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while the remaining two accused were charged under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Baldev Singh was convicted and other two accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt, as stated above.

In order to prove the allegations, prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Mahesh Parkash, PW2 Balbir Singh Patwari, PW3 Virsa Singh, PW4 Surinder Kumar constable, PW5 head Constable Mahabir Singh, PW6 Sukhwant Singh, PW7 Dalip Singh, PW8 Ashok Kumar, PW9 Dalbir Singh constable, PW10 Assistant Sub Inspector Amar Dass and PW11 Badan Singh Sub Inspector. Affidavit Ex.PS of Brij Pal constable was also tendered in evidence.

After the close of the prosecution evidence on 25.8.1993, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. Baldev Singh accused further stated that his parents were sufficiently old and incapable of doing cultivation themselves of the agricultural land which they owned in the area of village Mehmadpur adjoining the society land; that the complainant party tried to grab that land in the past taking advantage of old age of his parents and as he and his brother Angrej Singh were teenagers and at that time he was a student of Kurukshetra University and his brother Angrej Singh used to go to Panipat daily to do tailoring work. He further stated that it was a blind murder where none was present and when in the afternoon police could not find any clue of murder with the help of F.S.L. Team and dog squad, then the complainant party after summoning Virsa Singh from village Jhinda (Assandh) where he had gone on the previous evening to attend the collection of last remains (Phool Ceremony) of his fatherinlaw on the morning on 14.3.1992; in order to grab the agricultural land of his parents, concocted false story after consultation, deliberation and connivance with the police at about 6.00 p.m. and introduced Virsa Singh and Sukhwant Singh as witnesses of the actual occurrence; that the statement of Sukhwant Singh and the F.I.R were antetimed and he along with his brother Angrej Singh were falsely involved, so that none should look after their land and Ranjit Singh their brotherinlaw was falsely involved, so that there should be none to defend the case against them. He next stated that after the occurrence they had been driven out of the village by the complainant party and lived in Kurukshetra.

In defence, DW1 Sukha Singh resident of village Rattak, DW2 Sukhwant Singh resident of village Pobala, District Kaithal, were examined. Copy of the FIR dated 7.4.1996 Ex. DC, copy of the Jamabandi for the year 198889 Ex.DD, copy of Akas Shajra Ex.DE and copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.DF were tendered in evidence which was closed on 22.1.1994.

After going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Baldev Singh and acquitted his coaccused Ranjit Singh and Angrej Singh, as has been mentioned in the opening para of the judgment. Hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is a blind murder. Presence of the eyewitnesses at the time of occurrence is not proved from the evidence on the file, calling of the dogsquad by the police shows that the names of the culprits were not known at the time when the First Information Report was lodged, acquittal of the coaccused of the convictappellant of Baldev Singh namely Ranjit Singh and Angrej Singh also calls for the acquittal of the convictappellant, there is no motive on the part of the appellant to murder the accused, recovery of gandasa is fake and padding, the medical evidence does not corroborate the eyewitness account, presence of Virsa Singh (PW3) is not proved on the record as, according to him he was not a cosharer in the land which was taken on lease by Takht Singh, father of the deceased Jasbir Singh as his name did not find mention in the lease deed. The name of Virsa Singh (PW3) is not mentioned in the Inquest Report and his statement was recorded at 7.15 p.m. after the despatch of the deadbody, Presence of Virsa Singh is also doubtful on the ground that he had gone to collect the last remains of his fatherinlaw which had to be collected on 14.3.1992, which according to him, is corroborated by D.W. 1 Sukha Singh.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has submitted that the presence of the eyewitnesses at the time of occurrence is proved, the medical evidence corroborates the eyewitness account, calling of dogsquad does not affect the prosecution case and the acquittal of the coaccused of Baldev Singh does not call for the acquittal of the convictappellant and the prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone thorough the record with their assistance.

We do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

The absence of the name of Virsa Singh in the leaddeed of the society land does not mean that he could not share the land with Takht Singh. It has come in the evidence that he was a partner in the land which was taken on lease. P.W.6 Sukhwant Singh has stated on oath in his examinationinchief that Virsa Singh was joint in taking the land on lease and he had stated further that he along with Virsa Singh, Jasbir Singh alias Kala and started from their Village at about 1200 noon along with a tractor to plough the society land and to sow Jawar crop.

Virsa Singh (PW3) has stated on oath that on 14.3.1992, he along with Jasbir Singh and Sukhwant Singh (PW6) had gone on tractor from the village to the land which they had taken on lease, at 1200 noon. Sukhwant Singh started the tractor and started ploughing the land, while he (Virsa Singh) started working with the spade in the same land. Jasbir Singh laid on the cot in front of the kotha which was at a distance of half a killa from the place where they were working. At about 2.00 p.m., he saw Baldev Singh, Angrej Singh and Ranjit Singh near the place where Jasbir Singh was lying on cot. Baldev Singh who was armed with gandasa, gave a gandasa blow to Jasbir Singh in his presence. When they ran towards Jasbir Singh, the accused Baldev Singh, while passing through the wheat fields along with his weapon, ran towards his dera. When they reached the spot, they found that Jasbir Singh was lying dead on the cot.

Virsa Singh has specifically denied a suggestion put to him about his absence from the spot. He stated clearly that as he had strained relations with his fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw, he had not gone to attend the Phool Ceremony (picking up of lastremains) of his fatherinlaw to Village Jhinda. This statement of Virsa Singh is not contradicted. The evidence of DW 1 Sukha Singh in this regard does not inspire confidence, and his testimony has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court.

D.W. 1 Sukha Singh stated at the trial that he knew Santokh Singh of Village Jhinda who was his grandfather in thirddegree, and also knew his children. He (Santokh Singh) had two sons namely Nidhan Singh and Nishan Singh and two daughters Bachan Kaur and Harbans Kaur. Bachan Kaur was married in Village Mehmapur with Virsa Singh Sandhu son of Sucha Singh.

D.W. 1 Sukha Singh further stated that Santokh Singh had died about 20 months ago and he had attended his cremation ceremony. He had also gone on the second day and also on the third day when the ceremony of picking up his last remains was held. Virsa Singh was present at the time of the cremation ceremony. He had also seen Virsa Singh present there on the third day at the time of picking up of last remains of Santokh Singh. According to him, it was Saturday when at about 4.00 p.m., Virsa Singh had returned to Village Mehmadpour as some persons had come to call him.

The trial Court has rightly disbelieved this witness about the presence of Virsa Singh (PW3) at the time of ceremony of picking up of last remains of his fatherinlaw. Firstly, D.W.1 could not tell as to whom Nidhan Singh and Nishan Singh were married and what were the names of their fatherinlaw. He could not tell the date of death of Santokh Singh. He further stated that the cards were printed at the time of death of Santokh Singh but the cards were not distributed to the persons belonging to his brotherhood. He could not tell the names of persons present there except Gurdeep Singh, soninlaw of elder brother of Santokh Singh. He stated that the last remains of Santokh Singh were picked up at about 7.00/7.30 a.m. He could not tell the place where the last remains of Santokh Singh were to be immersed. He could not tell the names of brothers of Virsa Singh. He could not admit or deny if Virsa Singh was not on talking terms with his fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw for the last 810 years. He admitted that the son of Virsa Singh (PW6) was engaged with the daughter of his father''s sister and that engagement was broken by Virsa Singh prior to the occurrence. Therefore, he was inimical to Virsa Singh as Virsa Singh had broken the engagement of his son which had taken place with the daughter of his father''s sister.

The nonmention of the name of Virsa Singh (PW6) in the Inquest Report and recording of his statement by the police a little later does not prove that Virsa Singh was not present at the time of occurrence. It is not mandatory that the statement of a witness must be recorded in the Inquest Report. His presence at the time of occurrence is corroborated even by P.W. 6 Sukhwant Singh. The evidence of both the eyewitnesses is rather corroborative of each other and establishes that Baldev Singh had struck a gandasa blow on the neck of Jasbir Singh due to which Jasbir Singh had died.

The medical evidence also supports the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses. Dr. Mahesh Parkash (PW1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Panipat who conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of Jasbir Singh alias Kala on 15.3.1992 at 8.30 a.m., stated that the cause of death was injury to the fatal Vital?) organs (big vessels and cervical cord) leading to shock, hemorrhage and death and all the injuries were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. The time between death and injury according to him, was within a few minutes and between death and postmortem, 12 hours to 48 hours. He further stated that injury on the person of deceased Jasbir Singh could be caused with the gandasa Ex.P.5 and the incised wound on the neck of the deceased could be possible if a person was lying down on the cot on the one side. He further opined that the possibility of this injury having been received when the injured was lying on his left side, i.e. right side exposed to the assailants, could not be ruled out while lying on a cot and the death, in his opinion, could have taken place at 2.00 p.m. on 14.3.1992.

Much capital cannot be made out of the observations of PW10 A.S.I. Amar Dass who had mentioned in column No. 10 of the Inquest Report Ex.PB that rigor mortis was present (shreer akra hua). By the expression of the I.O. ''shreer akra hua'', does not mean that rigor mortis had developed on the whole of the body. No question was put to the I.O. during his crossexamination as to whether the whole of the body had developed rigor mortis or it was found on some part of the deadbody. Moreover, the presence of rigor mortis at a particular time is not a sure test to fix the time of death of a person, and in this case, reliable eyewitness account is available along with the opinion of the doctor which has proved that the death had taken place at about 2.00 p.m. on 14.3.1992.

The other contention of the learned counsel that the death should have taken place earlier to 2.00 p.m. due to the fact that according to Dr. Mahesh Parkash (PW1), fickle matter was present in the large intestines and the stomach was empty, is also without any force. It is in evidence and has been stated by P.W. 6 Sukhwant Singh that he and Jasbir Singh had taken breakfast together at 7.00/7.30 a.m. and did not take lunch on that day. Since the death had taken place at about 2.00 p.m. and about six hours had already elapsed before taking his breakfast and as such, the stomach could be empty. It is usually so in the villages that before going to work in their fields, they take their meals in the morning.

The other contention of the learned counsel that the summoning of dog squad by the police showed that the names of real culprits are not known, is also without any force.

The name of the convictappellant Baldev Singh was mentioned in the First Information Report itself and it has been brought to our notice that the dog squad was ordered to be informed immediately after the First Information Report was recorded which goes to show that there was no doubt about the name of the convictappellant being the accused at that time. The dogsquad can be called for many purposes; may be, for the search of the weapons of offence, but no report has been placed on the record. Thus, no comments can be made on the proceedings, if any, taken by the police. But in any case, the evidence of the eyewitnesses naming the convictappellant Baldev Singh as the culprit in this case is unimpeachable.

Another factor which corroborates the prosecution story is the prompt lodging of the First Information Report. The occurrence in this case is alleged to have taken place at 2.00 p.m. on 14.3.1992. Sukhwant Singh (PW6) went to his village from the fields where the occurrence had taken place to inform his family members about the murder and then went to the Police Station Sadar, Panipat to lodge the report. However, PW10 A.S.I. Amar Dass met him near kabri school at 3.35/3.37 p.m. he made his statement Ex.PH before ASI Amar Dass which was signed by him after admitting the same to be correct. Thereafter it was sent to the police station for registration of the case through constable after making endorsement Ex.PH/1 upon which the F.I.R Ex.PH/2 was recorded by Parkash Chand, A.S.I. The copy of F.I.R. shows that the recording of F.I.R. started at about 4.50 p.m. It further shows that the Illaqa Magistrate had received the Special Report at 6.30 p.m. on 14.3.1992. This has been corroborated by P.W. 9 Dalbir Singh Constable who stated that on 14.3.1992 at about 5.45 p.m., he was asked by M.H.C. Mahabir to get ready to take the Special Report to the authorities and he was handed over the Special Report at about 6.05 p.m. for being delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate and other police officers and he delivered the Special Report to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.30 p.m. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the First Information Report.

The convictappellant cannot get the benefit of acquittal of his co accused Ranjit Singh and Angrej Singh as their case is quite separable from the case of the convictappellant. The statement Ex.PH of P.W. 6 Sukhwant Singh coupled with the F.I.R. Ex. PH/2 shows that there is no mention in it that Angrej Singh and Ranjit Singh had given any lalkara or had exhorted Baldev Singh to murder Jasbir Singh alias Kala. It has been stated by Sukhwant Singh (PW6) that on 14.3.1992 at about 2.00 p.m., he and Virsa Singh saw Baldev Singh and Angrej Singh sons of Jeet Singh and their relative Bhopala (Gumthla) who was their brotherinlaw, standing in front of the kotha and at that time, Baldev Singh was armed with gandasa, Angrej Singh was armed with lathi and their brotherinlaw was armed with neja and in the meantime. Baldev Singh gave a gandasa blow hitting Jasbir Singh who was lying on the cot and they at the same time, ran towards the kotha but the accused along with their respective weapons, after passing through the wheat fields, ran towards their dera. Thus, there is no mention about the lalkara given by the accused Angrej Singh and Ranjit Singh or that they had exhorted Baldev Singh to kill Jasbir Singh alia Kala. Even the name of Ranjit Singh as such is not mentioned but on the other hand, the name of some Bhopala is mentioned. In any case, the learned trial Court has considered the whole evidence and it gave the benefit of doubt to them by holding that the mere attribution of lalkara to the co accused of the convictappellant was not sufficient to convict them for the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. We do not find any infirmity in this finding of the learned trial Court and at the same time, we hold that the convictappellant is not liable to get any benefit of acquittal of his co accused.

It has come in the evidence of Virsa Singh (PW3) and Sukhwant Singh (PW 6) that a dispute about the demolition of the daul of the society land had taken place between Baldev Singh convictappellant and Jasbir Singh alias Kala deceased twice before the present occurrence took place. The dispute had taken place as Baldev Singh accused had sold earth of the land of the society. Though compromise is alleged to have been effected between them in the panchayat, but it is possible that inspite of the compromise, Baldev Singh accused was nourishing a grudge against the deceased. It is in the nature of some human beings that despite a compromise, they still keep an old grudge in their minds. The motive to commit murder of Jasbir Singh alias Kala is, thus, proved on the file.

Recovery of gandasa from the convictappellant has been fully proved from the statements of P.W. 7 Dalip Singh and P.W. 11 S. I. Badan Singh. Their testimony could not be shaken in any way by the defence. It is, thus, proved on the record that gandasa was recovered from Baldev Singh convictappellant in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PK.

In view of our discussion made above, we do not find merit in this appeal which is dismissed.