Bhola Singh alias Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Bhola Singh (18) has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His father Sadhu Singh (45) has been convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 for the murder of Bal Singh. Both have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each in default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. The above named appellants have further been convicted under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/ each; in default of payment of fine, they have been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been made to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, Bal Singh deceased was a confirmed bachelor. He was living with his real nephews, being sons of his brother Harchand Singh who died about 20 years back. On 19121985 at about 6.00 P.M. he found Bhola Singh appellant sitting outside his house and uttering obscenities in a drunken condition. He asked Bhola Singh as to why he was uttering filthy abuses in front of their house. Bhola Singh walked away uttering something. Bal Singh came inside the house and started splitting and emptying cotton pods sitting on a cot. His two nephews, Surjit Singh alias Lilu (PW4) and Malkiat Singh (PW5) were warming themselves near the hearth situated in the courtyard. At about 6.30 P.M. Bhola Singh appellant along with his father Sadhu Singh came. Bhola Singh was armed with a Gandasa and his father Sadhu Singh was carrying a Lathi. The accused entered the house of Bal Singh Sadhu Singh asked Bal Singh as to why he had chided his son while the latter was going in the street. Sadhu Singh then gave a blow with his Lathi on the right wrist of Bal Singh. Surjit Singh PW4 and Malkiat Singh (PW5) raised alarm. Bhola Singh appellant however gave Gandasa blow on the forehead of Bal Singh from the reverse side. Bal Singh fell down from the cot. Both appellants, however, ran away with their respective weapons. Bal Singh became unconscious Surjit Singh (PW4) with the help of Malkiat Singh (PW5) removed the injured to the Civil Hospital at Rampura Phul by a camel driven cart.

Dr. R.N. Singla (PW1) Medical Officer examined the injured and prepared medico legal report Exh. PA. In the medico legal report, Dr. Singla noted that the injured was brought to the hospital at 10.00 P.M and he was accompanied by Lilu, nephew of the injured. He found two injuries on the forehead and right wrist having been caused by a blunt weapon within six hours. He sent a Ruqa to the police. ASI Hardev Singh (PW6) came to the hospital. The injured succumbed to his injuries at 11.20 P.M. ASI Hardev Singh recorded statement of Surjit Singh alias Lilu at 1.30 A.M. and forwarded the same to Police Station for registration of a case. Formal FIR was entered at 2.10 A.M. and a special report was delivered to the Judicial Magistrate at 4.00 A.M on the night between 19th and 20th December 1985. ASI Hardev Singh (PW6) inspected the spot, collected blood stained earth from point `A'' shown in the site plan, Exh. PH from inside the courtyard of the house of Bal Singh and his nephews. He also took into possession some cotton pods which were apparently stained with blood, made the same into sealed parcels and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory where the cotton pods as well as the earth was found stained with human blood vide report, Exh. PH.

The accused were arrested. On interrogation blood stained Gandasa was recovered at the instance of Bhola Singh which was sealed and on examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory it was found to be stained with human blood.

At the trial the prosecution examined Surjit Singh and Malkiat Singh nephews of the deceased as eye witnesses besides the Doctor the Investigating Officer and some other witnesses who are more or less formal.

The plea of the accused is one of denial. Further plea of Bhola Singh was that he was out of the village on the day of occurrence. The accused produced no evidence in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, accepted the evidence of the eyewitnesses and convicted and sentenced the accused as already indicated. Hence this appeal.

Shri Dara Singh, Senior Advocate for the appellants has made three submissions. His first contention is that the alleged eye witnesses Surjit Singh (PW4) and Malkiat Singh (PW5) had not witnessed the occurrence and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. In support of this contention, the learned counsel pointed out that admittedly both the witnesses were real nephews of Bal Singh deceased. The main occurrence was preceded by another untoward incident in which Bhola Singh appellant was heard uttering obscenities and he was pulled up by Bal Singh. According to the learned counsel, this must have attracted attention of others and it could be easily expected that some independent witnesses would have seen the occurrence if it had taken place in the house of the deceased. No doubt, both the eye witnesses on which the prosecution relies in this case are real nephews of the deceased but their presence at the time of occurrence is at once natural. The occurrence, it must be remembered, took place inside the house in which Bal Singh deceased lived along with his nephews. The prosecution case is that Bal Singh was a confirmed bachelor and he was living with his nephews especially as the father of the nephews i.e. brother of Bal Singh had died about 20 years back when Bal Singh''s nephews were very young. The occurrence took place in, the latter part of the month of December when it is fairly cold and people especially in our villages retire to their houses in the early evening as they start their work rather early the next morning. Moreover, both these witnesses were subjected to a fairly lengthy and searching crossexamination and their testimony could not be shaken. Surjit Singh alias Lilu took the injured Bal Singh to the Civil Hospital, Rampura Phul and the fact that he accompanied the injured is duly mentioned in the medico legal report, Exh. PA. The FIR was lodged in this case without any undue delads.

They eye witness account find ample corroboration from the medical evidence. It will be pure speculation to assume that because of the earlier incident which took place at about 6.00 P.M. some other persons of the locality were attracted to the spot. In fact what had taken place was not an altercation. It was only that Bal Singh asked Bhola Singh as to why he was uttering filthy abuses in from to their houses and Bhola Singh moved away. Even if some one had noticed the above incident, no one knew that Bhola singh will return to the house of Bal Singh etc. and, therefore, it could not be expected that other person, if any, would stick around the house of the deceased. In any case the duty of the Court is to appraise the evidence produced in the case instead of speculating as to what evidence could be or ought to have been produced. Reference in this connection may be made to State of U.P. v. Suresh, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1976.

The learned counsel referred to two facts admitted in crossexamination by Surjit Singh (PW4) and Malkiat Singh (PW5). Surjit Singh (PW4) admitted that his uncle Bal Singh deceased had no previous enmity with the accused. Malkiat Singh (PW5) admitted that no person in the village was informed. In our view neither of these facts bring any infirmity in the prosecution case. Undeniably there is no enmity between the parties but for the small incident which took place at about 6.00 P.M. to which reference has already been made. It is well known and judicially recognised that the social structure in Punjab is such that even a trifling incident may lead to some serious consequences. If a reference is required, the same may be made to jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) RCR(Crl.) 83 (SC) : AIR 1983 Supreme Court 284. Though no one in the village was informed, the conduct on the part of Surjit Singh and Malkiat Singh, PWs is at once understandable. They were keen to rush the injured to the hospital without wasting a minute so that his life could be saved. There was hardly any point in staying back in the village and informing the other persons.

The next contention of the learned counsel is that Sadhu Singh appellant had been falsely roped in and he was no present at the time of occurrence. The learned counsel submitted that unfortunately there was a tendency on the part of the complainant to rope in as many persons of the opposite party as possible out of sheer vengeance. In this connection, the learned counsel pointed out that injuries found on the person of the deceased were blunt weapon injuries and could have been caused by a single person and it was quite likely that Sadhu Singh had been falsely implicated. We have given our thought to this submission. We, however, are of the view that in the facts of the present case Sadhu Singh appellant to Sadhu singh, in the eye witness account given by Surjit Singh, there is a circumstantial assurance regarding his presence and participation in the occurrence. the incident took place inside the house of Bal Singh, Surjit Singh etc. When it is a question of entering some body else''s house to kill a person, it is highly improbable that a person would go all alone. It is more probable that he would take along with him some one with the help of whom he could settle scores. For these reasons, we find no substances in the contention of the learned counsel.

It was next argued by the learned counsel tha there was a conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence which rendered the ocular testimony open to doubt. In this connection, reference was made to a finding of Dr. R. N. Singla (PW1) in the postmortem examination in which he found contusion 3" x 4'' on the front of the right shoulder. Surjit Singh in his eye witness account failed to mention about this injury. He also failed to specially bring to the notice of Dr. Singla about the said injury which was apparently not visible because the injured must be wearing clothes being winter season. The argument is that if Surjit Singh (PW4) had seen the occurrence, there was no understandable reason why he did not mention about the said third injury. Dr. Singla (PW1) stated that injury No. 3 just mentioned could be received by a fall from the cot. According to the prosecution, Bat Singh was sitting on a cot when he was attacked by the appellants. As a result of the two blows, Bal Singh fall down. The injury in question thus stands explained. There is no conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence in this case.

Lastly it was contended that only a single blow was given, The Gandasa was used from the blunt side. There was no background of any enmity and, therefore, the offence disclosed was one under Section 304 PartII, we have given our earnest consideration to this aspect of the case. The blow with the reverse side of the Gandasa which is undoubtedly a lethal weapon was given, with such ferocity that the frontal bone was fractured into a number of pieces. One piece of broken bone got embedded in the brain matter. The fact that reverse side of the Gandasa was used is not enough to take the case out of the mischief or Section 300 (Thirdly) of the Indian Penal Code. (See Atulji Nagaji v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1166).

For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.