Charan Singh alias Kala and ors. vs State of Punjab

B.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1990 of the leaned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, convicting the appellants under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code''), appellant Charan Singh under Section 302 of the Code and the remaining appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and appellant Charan Singh also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. As a result of the aforesaid convictions, appellant Charan Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ under Section 302 of the Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Gurmit Singh, Jagtar Singh and Ajit Singh, appellants, were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ each under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the four appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ each under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Charan Singh, appellant, was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The facts of the case are that complainant Smt. Pritam Kaur is the second wife of Rangila Singh, who died some time back. The latter had five children from his first wife. Balbar Singh is the eldest son out of those children. He is married. There was some dispute regarding the property of Rangila Singh between Balbir Singh and the former''s second wife PW Pritam Kaur in connection with the partition of the house, about two days prior to the occurrence. To bring about settlement of the dispute, Pritam Kaur had called Anokh Singh deceased, who was the brother of her deceased husband Rangila Singh. On 23.9.1988, at about 10 A.M. the family members got together at the house of Amrik Singh. They consisted of Pritam Kaur, Anokh Singh deceased, Balbir Singh and Amrik Singh were returning to their house at about 12.30 p.m. When they reached near the house of Buta Singh, they came across Charan Singh, appellant, armed with a double barrel gun, Gurmit Singh, appellant, armed with a Lathi and Jagtar Singh and Ajit Singh, appellants, who were empty handed. Charan Singh, appellant, raised a Lalkara that Anokh Singh deceased be dragged and taught a lesson for murdering his (Charan Singh) father Dalip Singh. Upon this, Ajit Singh and Jagtar Singh, appellants, put a Parna around the neck of Charan Singh deceased, and dragged him to the house of Charan Singh, appellant. Pritam Kaur and other persons beseeched the appellants not to harm the deceased but they did not pay any heed to the entreaty. After taking Anokh Singh to the house of Charan Singh, the latter fired a gun shot at him (Anokh Singh) on the left side of his abdomen. Gurmit Singh, appellant, gave a Lathi blow on the head of Anokh Singh, as a result of which the letter fell down on the ground. Charan Singh, appellant, then fired another gun shot from close range near the ear of Anokh Singh. The latter succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Thereafter the appellants fled away with their respective weapons. Pritam Kaur and other raised alarm, which attracted Badri Singh, Member Panchayat, and Joginder Singh, Ex. Sarpanch. She along Joginder Singh, ExSarpanch, was going to Police Station Subhanpur to lodge report. However, the police met them at the crossing of Subhanpur, where she made a statement to the police, on the basis of which case was registered and investigations undertaken. In due course of time, the appellants were apprehended and final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed in the Court.

The trial Court charged all the appellants under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Code, appellant Charan Singh under Section 302 of the Code and the other three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and appellant Charan Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in order to substantiate the charges against the appellants. Out of these, PW 5 Pritam Kaur, complainant, PW 6 Amrik Singh and PW 7 Balbir Singh are the witnesses to the ocular account. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enable them to offer their explanations in respect of the allegations levelled against them in the prosecution version. All the appellants denied the prosecution allegations. Gurmit Singh, Jagtar Singh and Ajit Singh, appellants, pleaded innocence. However, Charan Singh, appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code adopted the following plea :

"I am innocent. On the day of occurrence at about 10 a.m. Anokh Singh deceased armed with Datar, Balkar Singh, Amrik Singh and Lutha armed with Kirpans attacked me at my house. They raised a Lalkara that they would kill me for sending Anokh Singh and Balkar Singh to Jail for number of years in the murder case. They aimed blows at me with their weapons but I slipped and the blows missed. I picked up my licensed gun and fired in my right of private defence. If I had not fired they would have killed me. I went to the Police Station myself after the incident but the police did not record my statement though I gave them my version. I was arrested on the same day. My mother Pritam Kaur sent telegrams and applications to the higher police officials but no action was taken. My mother was also present at the time of occurrence."

Two undisputed but significant points occurring in the prosecution evidence need to be borne in mind before proceeding to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first of these points relate to the fact that Anokh Singh deceased and others had been convicted for the murder of Dalip Singh father of Charan Singh, appellant, and he had returned to the village, on the day of the occurrence, shortly after serving the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him in that case. The second point which has been admitted by Charan Singh, appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that the occurrence had taken place in his (Charan Singh) house. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that since the occurrence had taken place in the house of appellant Charan Singh, it clearly establishes that Anokh Singh deceased and his companions were the aggressor party, for they had gone to open the attack on Charan singh because the deceased was aggrieved against appellant Charan Singh since he got the deceased convicted in connection with the murder of his father Dalip Singh. This contention is untenable for there is ample, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence available on the record through the testimony of the witnesses to the ocular account which shows that the deceased has been dragged to the house of Charan Singh by Ajit Singh and Jagtar Singh, appellants by putting a Parna around the neck of the deceased on the exhortation of Charan Singh appellant. In an attempt to challenge the prosecution version with regard to the deceased being dragged by the appellants to the house of Charan Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants to the house of Charan Singh the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the absence of any drag marks on the body of the deceased shows that the prosecution version is unreliable. On careful consideration of this contention, the same is found to be devoid of any merit. Parna, which was used by Ajit Singh and Jagtar Singh for dragging Anokh Singh deceased being a piece of cloth cannot by itself cause any injury. It is true that some injuries could possibly have been caused on the person of the deceased, had the latter tried to show resistance when the Parna was existing around his neck, but it seems that he did not show any such resistance and in fact the statement of PW 5 Pritam Kaur in her crossexamination would show that the deceased did not try to rescue himself because he had been over powered by the appellants as they outnumbered him in numerical strength. Apparently, Charan Singh, appellant, was armed with a double barrel gun while Gurmit Singh was armed with Lathi. They were also accompanied by their two companions Ajit Singh and Jagtar Singh. Anokh Singh deceased was, therefore, aware that the appellants were possessed of disproportionate strength to dragging on the person of the deceased. This reasoning also negatives the plea of the appellant that Anokh Singh and his companion were aggressors or that he had gone to house of Charan Singh of open the attack.

In this attempt to challenge the prosecution version regarding the presence of Anokh Singh deceased at the time of the occurrence, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the story of the prosecution that Anokh Singh had come to settle the dispute regarding property between PW 5 Pritam Kaur and PW 7 Balbir Singh is not reliable of the presence of Anokh Singh deceased was not necessary for that purpose, especially when PW 5 Pritam Kaur had admitted that her own father used to reside with her and if that was so, he could have intervened to bring about the settlement regarding the property between her and PW 7 Balbir Singh. This contention loses sight of the fact that the father of complainant Pritam Kaur in the event of his acting as an intermediary in the settlement of the dispute between her and her step son could not probably be accepted by Balbir Singh and, therefore, the presence of a more dependable man was required. Anokh Singh deceased was the brother of the husband of complaint Pritam Kaur and was thus, equally related to PW 7 Balbir Singh, being his uncle. His presence was, therefore, bound to inspire greater confidence in the minds of both the parties for bringing about the settlement.

The learned counsel for appellants then attempted to assail the prosecution version regarding the protect depute between the two prosecution witnesses by urging that discrepant versions about the settlement of the dispute are coming from the three eye witnesses and therefore, the story of holding a conclave and settling the dispute should be held to be a concoction and added that Anokh Singh''s presence in this conclave has merely been introduced to establish his presence in the village also. We have no hesitation in repelling this contention for the presence of Anokh Singh in the village cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants inasmuch as Charan Singh, appellant, has pleaded in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that Anokh Singh was an aggressor and he had come to his house to open the attack.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution story should be rejected because the Investigating Officer failed to examine the witnesses from the locality where the occurrence had taken place and added that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of PW 5 Pritam Kaur, PW 6 Amrik Singh and PW 7 Balbir Singh. It is not an uncommon experience that neighbours generally do not involve themselves in any investigation of a criminal case. No material on the record has been referred to by the leaned counsel for the appellants to show that anyone was present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. Since none else had seen the occurrence, the examination of any person residing in the nearby houses could have no bearing on the prosecution version.

After close scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, we find that the grievance, if any, was to Charan Singh, appellant, against Anokh Singh deceased because the former could not have been able to persuade himself to agree to the presence of the deceased who had murdered his (Charan Singh) father, in the village, after serving the sentence awarded to him by the competent Court. The prosecution version that all the appellants had the motive to commit this crime is quite probable.

For the reasons above, we do not find any ground to disturb the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge against the appellants. Hence the appeal fails is dismissed.