Daljit Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.—These two criminal appeals namely; criminal appeal No. 195-DB and criminal appeal No. 167-DB of 1994 directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 29-3-1994 whereby he has convicted Surjit Singh (appellant in criminal appeal No 195-DB of 1994) and Daljit Singh (appellant in criminal appeal No. 167-DB of 1994) under Sections 302 302/34 IPC respectively and , has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, will be disposed of through this common judgment. According to the case set up by the prosecution at the trial, facts are as follows :

Lachhman Singh, Gulzar Singh, Sohan Singh, Santokh Singh and Harvinder Singh are sons of Tara Singh of village Dhaliwal, P.S. Nakodar, Lachhman Singh and Gulzar Singh are bachelors while Sohan Singh, Santokh Singh and Harvinder Singh are married. Harvinder Singh is away to Libya. They are all joint in cultivation. They have ''behak'' in their fields for tethering cattle. They have also one tubewell kotha and adjoining to that, pucca veranda for tethering cattle in their fields. Lachhman Singh and Gulzar Singh used to sleep for the night in the tubewell kotha for guarding cattle tethered in the veranda while Sohan Singh and Santokh Singh used to reside in the village with the rest of the members of their families. On the night intervening 3/4-11 -1990 also, as usual, Lachhman Singh and Gulzar Singh slept in their behak. Gulzar Singh slept in the tubewell kotha while Lachhman Singh slept in the veranda. Electric bulbs were burning inside and outside the tubewell kotha. At about 1.00 A.M. there was sound produced by the striking of the door against the wall. Similarly, mur-muring between few persons became audible to Lachhman Singh. Lachhman Singh at once got up. He (Lachhman Singh) peeped through the window as its one flank was dislocated from the hinge and saw Daljit Singh alias Jita son of Gian, Singh holding the head of Gulzar Singh and pressing it while Surjit Singh alias Sita holding Kulhari in his hand dealing blows to Gulzar Singh on his neck. One blow hit him on the adam''s apple-jugular vein towards the front side and the other blow hit him towards the right side. As a sequel to these injuries, blood began oozing out profusely. Gulzar Singh while writhing with pain succumbed to his injuries on the cot. Lachhman Singh identified Surjit Singh and Daljit Singh in the electric light. They were standing in the vacant space in front of the tubewell kotha after committing the murder of Gulzar Singh. Santokh Singh and Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya son of Dhanna Singh came from the side of Village Dhaliwal as they were to operate joint tubewell for watering their fields. On seeing them, Lachhman Singh raised raula marditta-marditta. Santokh Singh and Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya came rushing towards the tubewell kotha while raising raula "catch hold of the assailants." Surjit Singh and Daljit Singh ran away with that kulhari towards kacha road. Lachhman Singh, Santokh Singh and Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya sat near the dead body, guarding it. They kept sitting near the dead body guarding it as it was night time and also they were fearful of the assailants lest they should way lay them and harm them. None of them could go for lodging report during the night. While running from the spot after the commission of murder of Gulzar Singh, Surjit Singh proclaimed that he had avenged the insult by committing the murder of Gulzar Singh as he had been accused of molesting Paramjit Kaur daughter of Sohan Singh (niece of Gulzar Singh, Lachhman Singh, Santokh Singh and Harvinder Singh). On 2-11-1990 at about 2.00 P.M. Surjit Singh had caught hold of Paramjit Kaur daughter of Sohan Singh while she was going and taken her in the cotton fields of Tara Singh with a view to ravish her and gratify his lust on her, tried to break opjn to string of her salwar. He could not ravish her and gratify his lust on her as she kept raising raula loudly, and abusing him and also her mother Swaran Kaur and Sardara Singh son of Dhanna Singh came there rushing towards cotton fields, raising lalkaras. Matter was brought to the notice of the Panchayat. The Panchayat continued exploring the possibility of compromise. Compromise could not be reached because of non-appearance of Surjit Singh in the Panchayat. Gulzar Singh was insisting upon reporting the matter to the police and avenging the invasion made by Surjit Singh for attempt at outraging the modesty of Paramjit Kaur. Surjit Singh alias Sita hatched conspiracy with his friend Daljit Singh alias Jita and murdered Gulzar Singh in pursuance of that conspiracy. Lachhman Singh reported the matter to ASI Harbans Singh while he was on way to police Station on 4-11-1990 at about 9.0 A.M. ASI Harbans Singh recorded statement Ex.PA and sent statement Ex.PA to Police Station, Nakodar for the registration of the case against the accused. On the basis of statement Ex.PA, Case FIR No. 131 was registered at Police Station, Nakodar under Sections 302 302/34 376/34 read with Section 511 IPC.

After the trial was over, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar convicted the accused and sentenced them as indicated above.

With a view to bring home to the accused (appellants herein) the charge levelled against them by the prosecution, the prosecution examined Lachhman Singh PW 1, Paramjit Kaur PW 2, Naranjan Singh PW 3, Swaran Kaur PW 4, Dr. Shangara Singh PW 5, Santokh Singh PW 6, Mohinder Singh PW 7 and ASI Harbans Singh PW 8. Besides, the prosecution tendered into evidence affdavits Ex.PF and Ex.PG of formal witnesses and report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PH. Sardara Singh PW was given up as won over. Sohan Singh, Tarsem Singh, Darshan Singh, Constable Kulwinder Singh and Swaran Singh were given up as unnecessary.

Acccused when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the imputations appearing in prosecution evidence against them and stated that it is a false case. Daljit Singh accused pleaded that he was present in the village on 3-11-1990 and was joined in investigation but was let off. There was no evidence against him. He was found innocent by DSP, Nakodar-Ravinder Singh, who directed the investigating Officer not to arrest him. In their defence, they examined Sh. Ravinder Singh DSP-Nakodar DW 1 and Sh. Puran Singh, SHO Police Station, Nakodar DW-2.

Lachhman Singh PW 1 has given the ocular account of the occurrence. Ocular account given by him need not be repeated here over again as the same has been given while delineating the prosecutio case above.

Santokh Singh PW 6 stated that about two years and nine months back, he and Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya were watering their fields at about 1.00/2.00 A.M. (past mid-night). On hearing raula emanating from the direction of their tubewell kotha, they rushed towards that direction and saw the accused standing there in the light of electric bulb and saying that they had taken revenge upon Gulzar Singh. Saying so, they went towards the near-by sugar-cane field. Accused Surjit Singh was armed with kulhari while accused Daljit Singh was empty handed. Lachhman Singh was also present near Gulzar Singh. They saw Gulzar Singh dead. They sat near the dead body. Lachhman Singh told them that both the accused had murdered their brother Gulzar Singh. Santokh Singh PW. 6 is not an eye witness in the strict sense of the term. His testimony however, partakes the character of the testimony of an eye witness as he saw both the accused standing there and sayng that they had taken revenge upon Gulzar Singh. At that time Surjit Singh was armed with kulhari while Daljit Singh was empty handed. Lachhman Singh who was present near Gulzar Singh told them that the accused had murdered Gulzar Singh. Statement of Santokh Singh PW 6 thus appears in the same chain i.e. in continuation of the occurrence.

Dr. Shangara Singh PW 5 performed autopsy on the dead body of Gulzar Singh on 4-11-1990 at about 4.00 P.M. and found the following injuries on the dead body:

Incised wound 5 cms x 1.5 cm on the front of neck. Wound started from mid line and went up to 5 cms below the right mandible.

Incised wound 6 cms x 3 cms on the front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage.

On dissection, injury No. 1 and 2-skin thyroid cartilage hyoid bone larynx and trachea were cut alongwith major blood vessels on the right side of the neck.

In his opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries which were ante mortem in nature. Injuries No. I and 2 were individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within a few minutes and between death and post mortem was within 18 hours.

Paramjit Kaur PW 2, her mother Swaran Kaur PW 4 and Mohinder Singh PW 7 have stated about the possible motive which to their mind impelled the accused to murder Gulzar Singh. Paramjit Kaur daughter of Sohan Singh PW.2 stated that about 2 years ago, she was going towards their tubewell with tea for her father. When at about 1.00 P.M. she reached near the cotton fields of Tara Singh of their village, Surjit Singh accused met her. He forcibly dragged herto the cotton fields. He tried to commit rape on her and she raised alarm. Her mother Swaran Kaur and one Sardara Singh who resides in their neighbourhood came there on hearing alarm raised by her. Surjit Singh accused then ran away. They took the matter to the Panchayat surjit Singh and his father were called by the Panchayat. They, however, did not appear before the Panchayat.

Swaran Kaur PW. 4 stated that about 2 years ago at noon time, her daughter Paramjit Kaur was taking tea for her father Sohan Singh. She was following her. Surjit Singh caught hold of Paramjit Kaur and dragged her to the cotton fields of one Tara Singh. Paramjit Kaur raised alarm. She reached there. Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya also reached there. Surjit Singh ran away, Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya chased Surjit Singh but could not catch hold of him. They made complaint to the Panchayai. Neither Surjit Singh nor his father appeared before the Panchayat.

Mohinder Singh PW 7 stated that about 2 years ago, Sohan Singh came to him and complained that Surjit Singh accused had caught hold of his daughter by her arm while she was coming back from the fields. Panchayat was convened. Surjit Singh, however, did not appear before the Panchayat. According to the prosecution thus two days prior to the murder of Gulzar Singh, Surjit Singh had made an attempt to gratify his lust on Paramjit Kaur finding her alone in the fields. According to the prosecution, Gulzar Singh incurred the wrath of Surjit Singh (accused) as Gulzar Singh was insisting upon avenging the insult inflicted upon his niece Paramjit Kaur by Surjit Singh by trying to outrage her modesty and Surjit Singh joined Daljit Singh alias Jita with him to murder Gulzar Singh and thus avenged the ignominy which he had suffered because of the insinuation made that he had attempted to outrage the modesty of Paramjit Kaur.

ASI Harbans Singh PW 8 investigated the case. Case restson ocular account, medical account and the motive behind the crime.

We have to examine the prosecution evidence with a view to arrive at whether the charge framed against the accused has been duly brought home to them or that the prosecution evidence is wanting in any respect. On the point of motive, which is said to have impelled the accused to murder Gulzar Singh, we have to examine and scrutinize the testimony of Paramjit Kaur. Swaran Kaur and Mohinder Singh PWs. In her cross-examination, Paramjit Kaur has stated that she and 2/3 other girls had gone to see mela at village Dhaliwal three days prior to the death of Gulzar Singh and when they reached near the turning of the village i.e. two fields/kilas away from the village, accused met her. In the next breath, she stated that the person who had caught hold of her by her arms had muffled up his face and he had run away before the arrival of her mother.

In her cross-examination, Swaran Kaur, PW stated that they could not identify the person who had caught hold of arm of Paramjit Kaur because he had left before her arrival. So far as Mohinder Singh, PW is concerned, he was not cross examined about the matter relating to the complaint brought to the Panchayat by Sohan Singh that Surjit Singh accused had caught hold of the arm of his daughter Paramjit Kaur. He was not cross examined regarding the matter relating to non-appearance of Surjit Singh before the Panchayat to answer that charge.

It has been contended by learned defence counsel that Paramjit Kaur and Swaran Kaur have not supported the prosecution version so far as motive said to have impelled the accused to murder Gulzar Singh, goes. Paramjit Kaur and Swaran Kaur were examined-in-chief on 5-1-1993. They were cross examined on 27-10-1993. In their examination-in-chief, they supported the prosecution version through and through about the attempt made by Surjit Singh accused to outrage the modesty of Paramjit Kaur prior to the murder of Gulzar Singh. They have supported the prosecution version in the examination-in-chief through and through so far as the question of this matter having been brought to the notice of the Panchayat and the non-appearance of Surjit Singh before the Panchayat goes. Accused got 9 3/4 months'' time to prevail upon Paramjit Kaur and Swaran Kaur so that they resiled or at any rate, became soft towards them. Both of them were declared hostile at the request of Public Prosecutor for the State, who cross examined them. In her cross examination by Public Prosecutor for the State, Paramjit Kaur stated that she had stated in her examination-in-chef that surjit Singh had dragged her to the cotton fields and that she had raised alarm before Surjit Singh could succeed in ravishing her or molest her and she had made true statement in herexamination-in-chief. In hercross examination by the Public Prosecutor for the State she stated that it is Surjit Singh who had tried to molest her that day and her mother had also reached there. She also stated in her cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor for the State that her uncle had reported this matter to the Panchayat. In her cros examination on behalf of Daljit Singh accused after the Public Prosecutor for the State had cross examined her, she stated that whatever she had stated in her examination-in-chief that she had stated as tutored by Thanedar outside the Court.

In her cross examination by the Public Prosecutor for the State, Swaran Kaur stated that she had stated that on raula raised by them, Surjit Singh ran away and was not identified by them. It appears that after 5-1-1993, accused engaged themselves in prevailing upon Paramjit Kaur and Swaran Kaur to resile from what they had stated in their examination-in-chief. If there had been no attempt to outrage modesty of Paramjit Kaur two days prior to the murder of Gulzar Singh, why should Mohinder Singh PW have appeared and stated that Paramjit Kaur''s father Sohan Singh had brought complaint to the Panchayat that Surjit Singh had caught hold of arm of his daughter with a view to out-rage her modesty. Why should he have stated that the Panchayat was convened and Surjit Singh did not appear before that Panchayat? In the same strain it has been contended by learned defence counsel that matter was said to have been reported in writing regarding attempt at out-raging modesty of Paramjit Kaurby Surjit Singh accused but no such writing was produced at the trial.

Suffice it to say, in this case, it emerges quite clearly that there was attempt at out-raging the modesty of Paramjit Kaur two days prior to the murder of Gulzar Singh and the matter was reported to the Panchayat and Surjit Singh was summoned by the Panchayat. There was, thus, motive behind the murder of Gulzar Singh which operated in the mind of Surjit Singh accused alone. Even otherwise presence or absence of motive does not mean anything when there is ocular evidence. When there is ocular evidence with regard to crime in such a case it would be an exercise in futility to look for motive of the cime. Motive is a relevant factor to show and prove the guilt of the accused and evidence can always be led to the effect that the accused was having a motive which led to the commission of the crime. The contention of the learned defence counsel that there was no motive in this case is bereft of force. In Molu and Others Vs. State of Haryana, , their Lord ships of Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Somezimes the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the eye witness is credit-worthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on that, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant.

Similarly in Rajinder Kumar and Another Vs. The State of Punjab, their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that, "the circumstances which prove the guilt of the accused are, however, not weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not been established. It often happens that that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to acertain course of action." It is thus, clear that in this case the question of motive would pale into insignificance or will not assume much importance as the prosecution case is based on ocular and medical account. In this case, we have to find out whether ocular account is believeable and is corroborated by medical account inspiring confidence about its truthfulness.

It has next been contended by the learned defence counsel that it was a blind murder witnessed by none. Had it been not a blind murder but witnessed by Lachhman Singh, Santokh Singh and Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya, they would have chased the accused. Lachhman Singh would have entered the tubewell kotha through the door shown in the east of the tubewell kotha in the site plan when he was seeing his brother Gulzar Singh being given kulhari blows by Surjit Singh alias Sita and Daljit Singh alias Jita catching hold of his head and pressing it. Suffice it to say, Surjit Singh alias Sita and Daljit Singh alias Jita arc young men while Lachhman Singh is 50 years old. How could he stand against the might of the young men when one of them was armed with Kulhari and he himself was un-armed. In order to canvass this point further, it has been contended how could Surjit Singh alias Sita and Daljit Singh alias Jita allow Lachhman Singh to peep through the chink and see what was happening inside the tubewell kotha? Suffice it to say, human mind is as it is, they were engaged in accomplishing the task which they had taken and they were concentrating on accomplishing that task.

In order too canvass further this point it has been contended that there are tubewells/home steads near the place of occurrence. If anything of the sort had happened the owners of those tubewells/occupiers of those home steads would have reached the place of occurrence or at any rate, would have come to know that murder was being committed or murder had been committed. Suffice it to say, Lachhman Singh PW has stated in cross examination that the tubewell of Balwant Singh, Jarnail Singh and Karnail Singh is at a distance of 10 fields from their tuubewell. After the tubewell of Balwant Singh etc. there is situated the tubewell of Pal Singh son of Kesar Singh, where he has constructed his home-stead and that home-stead is at a distance of 3 fields from his tubewell. It is thus apparent that those tubewells/ home-steads are ssituated at a considerable distance. At such a distance no noise/hue and cry is audible, particularly at about mid night. Assuming that any of them had heard the noise/ hue and cry of Gulzar Singh, no body would come forward for fear of reprisals. It has been contended that since it was a blind murder not witnessed by anyone, there could be no question of anyone raising alarm of chasing assailant/assailants. It would bear repetition that Lachhman Singh has stated, that he and Gulzar Singh used to sleep for the night in the tubewell kotha/veranda as they are bachelors while remaining brothers are married residing with their families in the village. It is usual that in villages people do sleep in their home-steads in the fields. It was not un-usual for Lachhman Singh and Gulzar Singh to have, been sleeping in their fields. In order to further canvass this point, it has been submitted that if the murder had taken place within the sight of Lachhman Singh, Santokh Singh, Sardara Singh alias Lubhaya at about mid night of 3/4-11-1990 the matter would have been reported at Police Station Nakodar during the night or at any rate in the Police Post in village Dhaliwal itself. The matter was not reported during the night because murder did not take place in their presence. Suffice it to say, Lachhrnan Singh PW has stated that he did not move out for reporting the matter to the police during the night due to fear. To our mind the reporting of the matter to the Police during the night could not be insisted upon as in the year, 1990 Punjab was terribly aifflictedd with terrorism. On account of fear of terrorists no bodymoved out during the night. In Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that out of fear no body would risk his life and come out during night hours to inform Panch, Sarpanch or father of the deceased. In this case also we feel that it would be too much to expect the reporting of the matter to the police during the night when the entire State of Punjab was groaning under the weight of terrorism and also that Lachhman Singh etc. were feeling fearful of the accused. It cannot be expected of Lachhman Singh etc. that they would go to the village during the night and inform other members of the family regarding the murder of Gulzar Singh. Even Paramjit Kaur who was leaning in favour of the accused has stated that her uncle Gulzar Singh used to sleep near the cattle shed at the tubewell. If that was so, there is no point in believing that her uncle Lachhman Singh used to sleep in the Haveli. Lachhman Singh is not married. It would be probable and natural if we believe that he also used to sleep in the fields at night. In the nature of things the matter could not be reported to the police during the night. It could be reported to the police only in the morning. There was nothing unusual if the ladies of the house were taking tea for Lachhman Singh and Gulzar Singh at about 6.00/ 7.00 A.M. There is nothing on the record to show that Lachhman Singh, Santokh Singh etc. were also with those ladies; and they found Gulzar Singh murdered after reaching the tubewell kotha. If there is delay in the lodging of the First Information Report, the Court is not entitled to throw away the prosecution case on this mere ground. All that the Court has to do is to scrutinize the prosecution evidence with care and caution keeping in view that delay may not have been used to give twist to actual facts or introduce false witnesses or rope in some innocent persons.

It has been contended that Lachhman Singh stated in his cross examination that he had gone to Police Post in the morning after sun rise and the Police came with him to the tubewell at 8.00 A.M. and after reaching his tubewell be informed the police about the circumstances of the case; and thereafter the police of Police Station Nakodar came and they got his thumb impression and if that was so it is mystery as to what was the information given to the police in the first instance and the with-holding of that information would impinge upon the veracity of Lachhman Singh. It has been contended that information was with-held by the prosecution because that information was at variance with the version given by Lachhman Singh before ASI Harbans Singh.

Such police posts were set up in every villge in the wake of terrorism for raising the morale of the people and to patrol the area. In such police posts, hardly any roznarncha was kept. H. C. Kashmir Singh was the incharge of that Police Post. It was not suggested to ASI Harbans Singh that some information was given by Lachhman Singh at the Police Post and that he did not collect that information because that information was at variance given by Lachhman Singh before him (ASI Harbans Singh). In our opinion it was statement made by Lachhman Singh before ASI Harbans Singh that was first in point of time constituting the foundation of the case.

It has next been contended that DSP Ravinder Singh DW 1 found during investigation that Daljit Singh alias Jita was innocent. Suffice it to say, no value can be attached to the investigation made by DSP Ravinder Singh as he did nothing but re-recorded the statements of Lachhman Singh etc. In the statements re-recorded by him he gave a total twist to their statements. It is not believeable that they stated before the DSP Ravinder Singh that the assailants were three in number and out of them one was Surjit Singh alias Sita whom they had identified and others they had not identified.

In this case in our opinion there is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. Lachhman Singh made statement before ASI Harbans Singh at 9.00 A.M. on 4-11-1990, when he was on way to Police Station, Nakodar. FIR was recorded at Police Station Nakodar at 9.45/10.30 A.M. Special report reached the ilaqua Magistrate at 11.00 A.M. Lachhman Singh could however have set out from the place of occurrence at about 6.00 A.M. to report the matter. As a measure of caution therefore we deem it proper to give benefit of doubt to Daljit Singh alias Jita first because he was not carrying any weapon, second, he did not have any motive to commit the murder of Gulzar Singh. He did not absolutely have any animus against Gulzar Singh. It is not believeable that in his conscience he accompanied Surjit alias Sita for committing the murder of Gulzar Singh, when he did not have any animus against him. If he were to accompany, he would carry some weapon with him so as to provide support to Surjit Singh alias Sita and to provide protection to themselves against the impending on-slaught.

For the reasons given above, we do not find any infirmity so far as the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar convicting Surjit Singh alias Sita u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year goes. So far as Daljit Singh alias Jita is concerned regarding his complicity in the commission of the murder of Gulzar Singh, we do entertain reasonable doubt and accordingly accept his appeal (criminal No. 167-DB of 1994) giving him the benefit of doubt and acquit him. He shall be released forthwith. Fine if paid, shallbe refunded to him. Criminal Appeal No. 195-DB of 1994 of Surjit Singh alias Sita is dismissed. Daljit Singh @ Jita shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.