Charan Singh vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :

On 24th April, 1991, Arur Singh (PW2) a taxidriver of Samana and earlier a resident of village Malikpur, along with his brother Natha Singh, since deceased, nephew Angrez Singh, maternal cousin Jaswant Singh PW.3 and Satnam Singh PW4, his nephew, went to Gurdwara Sahin Kurhali on their tractor to pay obeisance. After parking the tractor outside the gate of the Gurdwara Sahib at about 3.30 p.m., as they were making their way inside the sanctum sanctorum with Natha Singh leading the way and the others trailing behind, Charan Singh alias Channi the accusedappellant, was seen coming from the opposite side and on reaching close to the deceased, he whipped out a small kirpan out of his Gatra and plunged the same into the abdomen of Natha Singh who slumped down on the ground. The accused tried to run away but was apprehended along with the kirpan by Arur Singh PW2 and the other witnesses. On an examination, the witnesses found that Natha Singh had died at the spot. The motive for the assault as pleaded by the prosecution was that the relations between the parties were soured on account of the alleged illicit relation of the accused with the wife of the deceased. After leaving his companions to guard the dead body and the accused, Arur Singh left for lodging a report in Police Post, Navagaon but on the way to the bus stand Kurhali, he met ASI Amarjit Singh PW8 and made his statement Exhibit PD before him and on its basis the formal first information report was registered at 6.15 p.m. the same evening. ASI Amarjit Singh and the police party then accompanied Arur Singh, went to the spot and completed the formalities and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused was also arrested and the Gatra Kirpan that he was carrying was also taken into possession. On the completion of the formalities a challan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial.

In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined inter alia, Dr. P.K. Bansal, PW1 who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Natha Singh and had found one injury on his person; Arur Singh PW2, Jaswant Singh PW3 and Satnam Singh PW4 the three eyewitnesses, and ASI Amarjit Singh PW8, the investigating officer. Certain documents were also tendered in evidence by the prosecution.

The prosecution case was then put to the accused and he pleaded false implication and denied the motive alleged against him and suggested that the deceased was in fact a bachelor.

The trial court came to the conclusion that Arur Singh PW2 who had up to the stage of examinationinchief supported the prosecution but at the stage of the crossexamination five months thereafter he made a complete volte face and was declared hostile and that he was a person whose evidence could not be relied on; that as there was only one accused, it could not be said that it was a case of false implication; that merely because the other eye witnesses who were present at the spot had not been produced as witnesses would not take away from the prosecution case as all the eyewitnesses were not required to be produced; that the mere fact that the inquest proceedings had not been attested by any of the alleged eyewitnesses was not a circumstance to be taken against the prosecution in the light of the fact that the accused had been apprehended at the spot; that the medical evidence indicated that a case of murder was clearly spelt out and having held as above, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to the payment of fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence this appeal.

We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record with their assistance. It has been contended by Mr. Jasbir Singh the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal that there were various discrepancies in the evidence of the three eyewitnesses and as such no reliance could be placed on their testimony more particularly as Arur Singh PW2 the complainant and the brother of the deceased had not supported the prosecution, and the fact that none of the eyewitnesses figured in the inquest proceedings was indicative of the fact that they had been brought to the place of incident after the murder had taken place. He has finally urged that in any case no case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was spelt out against the accused and at best, a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code was in order.

We have heard the learned counsel on these points. We have absolutely no doubt with regard to the culpability of the accused with the crime on account of the eyewitness account given by Arur Singh PW2, Jaswant Singh PW3 and Satnam Singh PW4. It is true that Arur Singh did not support the prosecution case in his crossexamination, but we are of the opinion that as there was a delay of five months between the recording of the examinationinchief and the crossexamination, Arur Singh was apparently won over. We have nevertheless no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the other two witnesses to the effect that the accused was arrested at the spot soon after the incident and handed over to the police at the time of the inquest proceedings. This to our mind is a conclusive circumstance against the accused. In the light of these factors, the involvement of the accused is clearly spelt out.

We are, however, in agreement with Mr. Jasbir Singh when he urges that on the admitted facts a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not spelt out. In this connection the injury on the person of the deceased is reproduced below :

"Stab wound 2.5 c x cm on the left side of upper part of abdomen, just below the left costal margin (below the ribs) and 2.5 cm from mid line towards left going deep. There was corresponding cut present on the shirt and under basket wearing going deep into the abdomen."

On dissection of the abdomen the doctor found that the liver had also been ruptured. It is, therefore, clear that there was only a solitary injury on the dead body of Natha Singh and no attempt had been made by the accused to cause any further blows. From the prosecution evidence if it clear that the meeting between the accused and the complainant party was a chance meeting, there being no premeditation and as the weapon that the accused was carrying was a traditional small Gatra which is carried by every devout Sikh shows that there was no intention whatsoever to cause the death of Natha Singh. It is, however, improbable from the circumstances that the accused could possibly have the knowledge that the injury that he had intended to cause was likely to cause death. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 463 came to the conclusion that no case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and the accused was liable to conviction under Section 304 Part II as he had no intention to cause the specific injury that was actually caused.

Mr. S.S. Randhawa, the learned State counsel, has however, cited two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam, 1995(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 231 : 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 231 and Jai Parkash v. State (Delhi Administration), 1991 CAR 148 (SC) to contend that even in a case of a solitary injury caused on a vital part of the body a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was to be made out. We have gone through these judgments and find that the facts of these cases are absolutely distinct from the case in hand. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the accused, convert the offence from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and reduce the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment; the sentence of fine being maintained as it is.