Baljit Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Hemant Gupta, J.—This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 672-DB of 2002 preferred by Baljeet Singh s/o Fateh Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur w/o Late Avtar Singh and Criminal Revision No. 2324 of 2002 preferred by Sat Pal Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh arising out a common judgment dated 29.8.2002 convicting Baljit Singh for the offence under Sections 302, 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ''Code'') and Section 27 of the Arms Act and convicting Sukhwinder Kaur for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 149; u/s 148 of the Code and sentencing both of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offences u/s 302 and for RI foor one year for an offence u/s 148 of the Code.

The relationship between the parties, as on record would be necessary for appreciation of the facts in the present appeal. Pal Singh son of Harbhajan Singh is the deceased who lost his life by fire arm injury on 19.5.1999. Harbans Kaur is the real sister of Harbhajan Singh, father of the deceased and Gurnam Singh. Harbans Kaur was married to Dial Singh who died in the year 1974. Harbhajan Singh had four sons namely Avtar Singh, Pal Singh, Satpal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. His sister Harbans Kaur had no child. She adopted Avtar Singh husband of Sukhwinder Kaur-Appellant No. 2 as her son. Avtar Singh died in an incident which took place in the year 1998. After the death of Avtar Singh, Sukhvinder Kaur claims to be in possession of land owned by Harbans Kaur in village Kolowaal. She had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Harbans Kaur and Pal Singh. On 19.5.1999, the said civil suit was fixed for hearing before the civil Court at Ajnala.

The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement (Ex. PC) made by Sat Pal Singh, brother of the deceased made to Inspector Balbir Singh PW-12 at about 3.30 P.M. on 19.5.1999, at Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. On the basis of Ruqa (Ex. PC/1), sent by Inspector, Balbir Singh to Police Station, Ajnala, FIR Ex. PC/2) was lodged at about 4.35 P.M., and the special report delivered to the learned Magistrate at 6.50 P.M. Satpal Singh disclosed the relationship as mentioned above and stated that his brother Avtar Singh used to reside at Village Kolowal and use to cultivate the land owned by Harbans Kaur. In the year 1998, in an election dispute for the office of Sarpanch in the village, Malook Singh and others, in all seven accused committed the murder of Avtar Singh in the village Isapur in the area of Police Station, Ajnala. After the death of Avtar Singh, dispute arose between his sister-in-law-Sukhwinder Kaur and his father''s sister, Harbans Kaur. His father''s sister-Harbans Kaur shifted her residence in village Rajdhan whereas Sukhwinder Kaur was in possession of land situated in the village Kolowal. She was not giving any share or rent for the land of his father''s sister. She instituted a case in Civil Court for permanent injunction which was being pursued by him (Sat Pal Singh) and his brother Pal Singh. The case was fixed on the said date when he and his uncle Gurnam Singh and his brother Pal Singh reached Ajnala on two scooters to pursue the case. After the adjournment of the case, he himself and his uncle-Gurnam Singh on one scooter and Pal Singh on his own scooter were going from Ajnala to village Rajdhan. He and his uncle were following Pal Singh, who was going ahead on his scooter. When they reached near the sugar mill in the area of village Bhala Pind at about 11.30 AM, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. PB02-R-9244 came from Ajnala side and stopped somewhere ahead, from which Baljit Singh son of Fateh Singh resident of village Longowal, Police Station Sadar Batala armed with gun, Sukhwinder Kaur-his sister-in-law alighted and stopped the scooter of Pal Singh. They also stopped behind him. Within their sight and hearing, his sister-in-law-Sukhwinder Kaur raised lalkaraasking his father to teach him a lesson for selling the land. On the exhortation of Sukhwinder Kaur, Baljit Singh fired a gun shot at his brother Pal Singh hitting him near the right nipple. As a result of which he fell down on one side of the scooter. Besides them, a driver and two other persons were sitting in the Tata Sumo at that time and that he and Gurnam Singh can identify. On raising hue and cry, Sukhwinder Kaur and Baljit Singh boarded the said Tata Sumo vehicle and went towards Amritsar. Thereafter, he and his uncle Gurnam Singh managed for the conveyance and took Pal Singh to Government Hospital Ajnala, where doctors gave him one or two injections and sent him to Government Hospital, Amritsar in hospital van. On reaching Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Amritsar, Pal Singh was declared dead. Doctors sent them to deposit his dead body to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. Leaving his uncle-Gurnam Singh along with the dead body, he went to give information at Police Station, Raja Sansi but on way he met police party and gave statement (Ex. PC).

After the lodging of the FIR, post mortem was conducted on 20.5.1999 by Dr. Ashok Chanan (PW-2). PW-1 Dr. Piarelal of Civil Hospital Ajnala has examined the injured Pal Singh in the first instance and referred him for the treatment to Amritsar. Apart from the evidence, to complete the chain of circumstances, prosecution examined PW-9-Satpal Singh, PW-11-Gurnam Singh as the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Apart from other formal witnesses, the Investigating Officer, Balbir Singh was also examined

The Empty cartridge taken in possession by the Investigating officer on the date of occurrence i.e. 19.5.1999 was sealed and kept in custody of MHC. Accused was arrested on 29.5.1999. On the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex-PU) made by the accused-Baljit Singh, a .12 double barrel bore gun was recovered on 30.5.1999 and deposited with the Head Constable. Such fact is proved by PW-5 Head Constable Baldev Raj. The .12 double barrel bore gun taken in possession on 30.5.1999 was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. In the report (Ex. PY), the cartridge marked as C/I lifted from the place of occurrence on 19.5.1999 was proved to have been fired from the right barrel of .12 double barrel bore gun No. 122216-83. Ex. PX is the report of the Chemical Examiner. As per the report, blood was found on Ex I i.e. Earth lifted from the place of occurrence and blood stains on the shirt, pajama, underwear, fatuhi (wraparound cloth around waist) was kept in and found to be blood stained. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution convicted the present Appellants as mentioned above.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution witnesses PW-9 Sat Pal Singh and PW-11 Gurnam Singh are the procured and introduced witnesses. Their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful which is evident from their conduct and circumstances produced on record by prosecution. It is contended that none of the witnesses have deposed that the Appellant-Baljit Singh has tried to reload his gun. It is only in the process of reloading of gun, the empty cartridge would fall at the place of occurrence. It is contended that from the statement of PW-1, Piare Lal there was no family member with the injured. From the testimony of PW-2, Dr. Ashok Chanana, it is apparent that names of such prosecution are not mentioned even at Amritsar Hospital. The injured was removed in a hospital van which is not probable in case, the family members were present with the injured at that time as the family members would remove injured in their own vehicle or arranged vehicle.

It is argued that the prosecution has failed to allege any motive with Baljit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur to take life of Pal Singh when Sukhwinder Kaur has already got injunction from Civil Court in her favour. It is also argued that the licenced gun is said to have been recovered on 30.5.1999 i.e. after 11 days of the occurrence. It is argued that from the statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Baljit Singh, the gun was in police custody since, 20.5.1999. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the Appellants and complete the chain of circumstances so as to restrain the finding that the Appellants alone who have committed the crime.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Sat Pal as PW-9 has admitted that none of the accused is a prosecution witness in the murder case registered on account of death of Avtar Singh. It could not be disputed by the Appellants and in fact the stand proved on record that Sukhwinder Kaur after the death of her husband-Avtar Singh has filed a civil suit for injunction which was pending before the Civil Court at Ajnala and that the day of occurrence i.e. 19.5.1999 was the date fixed in the said case. It has also come on record, that Harbans Kaur has started leaving with the accused at village Rajdhan. Thus, Sukhwinder Kaur and other sons of Harbhajan Singh were at logger head in respect of the land of Harbans Kaur. Though Baljit Singh armed with his licenced gun, is the resident of Village Batala but the fact is that he came to attend the hearing of the suit filed by his daughter Sukhwinder Kaur shows that tempers were running high in the two warring factions.

The arguments that the name of PW-9 Satpal Singh and PW-11 Gurnam Singh are not disclosed in the history of the patient at Civil Hospital Ajnala is of no consequence as in the cross-examination, Dr. Piarelal as PW-1 has stated, the name of none of the persons who brought the patient in hospital are not mentioned. Absence of any name in the record of Civil Hospital, Ajnala cannot be deemed to be absence of the prosecution witnesses along with the injured on the date of occurrence.

Though, from the testimony of PW-2, Dr. Ashok Channan, it transpires that the dead body was brought by two police officials, H.C. Jujhar Singh and Constable Avtar Singh, but it does not necessarily mean that the witnesses were not present. As per the evidence on record, the injured Pal Singh was removed to Amritsar Hospital in a government hospital van. Since, Pal Singh has already died at that time, mere fact that the name of the eye-witnesses are not mentioned in the hospital records does not create any doubt on the prosecution story.

Pw-9 Satpal Singh in the cross-examination disclosed that the scooter of Pal Singh was lying at the spot whereas scooter of Sat Pal Singh was taken to Ajnala by another person. His scooter remained parked at Civil Hospital, Ajnala and was collected in the evening. PW-11-Gurnam Singh in the cross-examination has deposed that the scooter was brought by them from Civil Hospital Ajnala on the next day. Thus the argument that the witnesses were not with the deceased on the date of occurrence is falls on the ground. The presence of the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution is proved at the time of occurrence. The defence version that all witnesses reached the hospital at Amritsar and their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer at Amritsar Hospital itself, remained unproved.

The witnesses PW 9 and PW 11 belong to Village Rajdhan. Said village is at the distance of 40 KM from Amritsar. Had it be so, the scooter of the witnesses would not be left at Civil Hosptal, Ajnala as deposed by PW-9 Sat Pal Singh and PW-11 Gurnam Singh. The scooter would be left at Civil Hospital, Ajnala only if the witnesses were following the deceased on their own independent scooter.

Though, the .12 double barrel bore gun, the empty will not be ejected till such time, the gun is reloaded. But the fact remains that both the prosecution witnesses had deposed that the empty fell on the ground. PW-12-Balbir Singh, Investigating Officer has also recovered empty from the place of occurrence. Such empty was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 29.5.1999 i.e. before the recovery of gun from the Appellant-Baljit Singh on 30.5.1999. No cross-examination has been conducted on any of the prosecution witnesses that they have not sent the accused reloading the gun. In the absence of any evidence of loading or reloading but of empty being available at the place of occurrence, it cannot be inferred that the gun was not reloaded at the place of occurrence.

The double barrel gun is the licenced weapon of Baljit Singh. The same is recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex. PU) made on 30.5.1999. The Forensic Science Report proves that the empty recovered from the place of occurrence was fired from the licenced weapon of the Appellant Baljit Singh. Such circumstance corroborates the eye witnesses account as deposed by PW-9 Sat Pal Singh and PW-11, Gurnam Singh that it is Baljit Singh who fired shot at Pal Singh which led to his death.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants, argued that the only allegation Sukwinder Kaur is that of exhortation calling upon Baljit Singh to fire. Therefore, the false implication of Sukhwinder Kaur cannot be ruled out. The argument raised is untenable. It is Sukhwinder Kaur who is fighting legal battle in respect of the land of Harbans Kaur and has filed a Civil Suit for injunction. She alone would have motive to eliminate her rivals. The presence of Sukhwinder Kaur at the time of occurrence is proved for the reason that she was coming back with her father after attending the hearing at Civil Court, Ajnala. Learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence to return a finding that the prosecution has proved the commission of crime by the Appellants.

We find that the view taken by learned trial Court does not suffer from any patent irregularity or illegality which may warrant interference in appeal.

In the Criminal Revision No. 2324 of 2002 the complainant-Sat Pal Singh has sought the setting aside of the judgment dated 29.8.2002 and to convict Gurbej Singh s/o Dial Singh, Daljit Singh s/o Khazan Singh and Harpal Singh s/o Avtar Singh as the co-accused of Baljit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur. There is no incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence so as to implicate them for the commission of crime. In the first information report, Ex PC the names of acquitted accused are not mentioned. The prosecution has recorded the supplementary statement of Sat Pal Singh on the same day wherein, Gurbej Singh, Daljit Singh and Harpal Singh have been disclosed. Learned trial Court has rightly found that it is not understandable that how Satpal Singh became aware of the name of the accused when it is in the case of complainants that such persons were known to him. Had they been known to him? Their names have been mentioned in the FIR itself.

In view of the said fact, we find that the findings recorded by learned trial Court granting benefit of doubt to such persons cannot be said to be unwarranted in any manner.

Criminal Appeal No. 672-DB of 2002 as well as Criminal Revision No. 2324 of 2002 stand dismissed accordingly.