Darbara Singh vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—This is an appeal directed against the conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and u/s 27 of the Arms Act and a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under the first count and one year rigorous imprisonment under the second count imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Barnala, upon Darbara Singh convict. He has challenged his convictions and sentences in this appeal.

The victim of the crime was Jagrup Singh. Accused Darbara Singh and P Ws Bahadur Singh and Karnail Singh are Sandus as their wives are real sisters. Inder Singh and Gurdev Singh are the brothers of Darbara Singh accused. Jagrup Singh alias Rup Singh deceased, Balwinder Singh and Sukhminder Singh are the sons of Bahadur Singh. The suggested motive for the crime is stated to be that about eight or nine months prior to the present occurrence. Sukhminder Singh was married to the daughter of Karnail Singh of village Chak Bakhtu. In that marriage, Gurdev Singh acted as a mediator. The marriage and the muklawa ceremony were performed on the same day. After the marriage, Karnail Singh took his daughter Jit Kaur to his village as she was simpleton and mentally deficient. She was taken to her village by her father against the wishes of Sukhminder Singh and his family members. About 10 days after the marriage, Karnaii Singh came to the house of Sukhminder Singh at village Talwandi and requested the latter that be should bring back Jit Kaur to his house. Upon this, Sukhminder Singh told his father-in-law Karnail Singh that he should leave his daughter at his house and he (Sukhminder Singh) shall not bring his daughter himself. It is said that about 10 or 12 days prior to the present occurrence, Gurdev Singh, brother of Darbara Singh accused complained to Bahadur Singh that Sukhminder Singh did not go to village Chak Bakhta to bring back his wife Jit Kaur and that such, misconduct of Sukhminder Singh shall prove costly to him because he (Gurdev Singh) brought about this marriage between the parties.

The prosecution case is that on 17th October, 1982 at about 4.00 or 5.00 p.m., Sukhminder Singh went to village Bihli to have a round of his ''Narma'' crop field where Gurdev Singh also came there, The latter asked the former to bring back Jit Kaur upon which Sukhminder Singh told Gurdev Singh that the parents of Jit Kaur should leave her at his place and that he shall not go there for that purpose. At that time, Darbara Singh accused and his brother Inder Singh were also present there The field of the accused and that of the complaint party adjoin each other At that time, Gurdev Singh exhorted Inder Singh and Darbara Singh to teach a lesson to Sukhminder Singh for such a misbehaviour. It is said that Sukhminder Singh left the fields and came to his house where he narrated(sic) the incident to his father. Bahadur Singh and his sons Sukhminder Singh and Jagrup Singh deceased left for the Police Station, Bhadaur on a tractor driven by Sukhminder Singh. At that time, Bahadur Singh and Jagrup Singh were sitting on the left and right mudguards of the tractor, respectively. When they reached near the pond and heaps of manure in the area of village Bihli the Sun was about to set. At that time, Bahadur Singh accused and his brothers emerged from the side of the pond Darbara Singh accused and Gurdev Singh had Double-barrel Gun each whereas Inder Singh was armed with a Gandassa. Gurdev Singh and Inder Singh raised ''lalkara'' saying that Sukhminder Singh should not be spared upon which Darbara Singh fired a shot from his gun aiming towards Sukhminder Singh but the same hit Jagrup Singh on the back of his right chest. On receipt of the injury, Jagrup Singh fell on the tractor and suceumbed to his injuries there and then. The accused along with his companions left the spot. It is said that the accused fired some more shots while leaving the spot. Bahadur Singh remained with the dead body whereas Sukhminder Singh went to Pritam Singh Sarpanch to inform him about the occurrence. In the meanwhile, Karnail Singh PW who also owns land in village Bihli reached the place of occurrence having(sic) Karnail Singh at the spot, Bahadur Singh and Sukhminder Singh left for Police Station Bhadaur where Bahadur Singh lodged the report Ex. PA with Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh. The police along with the complainant party reached the spot. The Sub Inspector held inquest Ex. PB and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. On the following day, the Sub Inspector lifted some blood-stained bajri and one empty cartridge Ex. P. 19 from the place of occurrence Darbara Singh accused was arrested on 31-10-1982 and his licensed DBBL. gun (Ex. P17) was taken into possession.

Dr. Parmod Kumar Jail PW 2 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jagrup Singh on 18-10-1982 at 10.00 a.m. and found the following injuries:

Lacerated wound 4 cm. � 4 cm. on the back of right chest at level of 6th and 7th rib, 4 cm. away from mid line. The margins were inverted, corresponding bole was present in the shirt. On dissection 6th and 7th rib fractured into pieces Right pleura ruptured. Multiple holes were present in the right lung, 48 pellets and cork were recovered from the right side, 4 pellets were recovered from underneath the skin on front right side of chest.

Three pellets were recovered from muscles on front of right side of cheat just below the nipple 41 pellets along with cork were recovered from the right side of the pleural cavity. The direction of the wound was going forward.

Abrasion 2 cm � 2 cm. on the back side of chest, 4 cms. away to injury No. 1.

Death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be within one hour and between death and post mortem within 24 hours. It is said that during the investigation of the case, the police found Gurdev Singh and Inder Singh accused to be innocent and, therefore, they were not challaned. After necessary investigation, Darbara Singh accused was challaned and committed.

The ocular testimony consists of Bahadur Singh PW1 and Sukhminder Singh PW 3. Karnail Singh PW 4 deposed to the fact that he reached the spot immediately after the occurence and Bahadur Singh PW told him that Darbara Singh accused had fired a shot at his son and murdered him. Jang Singh PW 5 deposed regarding the recovery of empty cartridge from the spot. Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh PW 12 is the investigating Officer. When examined u/s 313, Cr. P.C., Darbara Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

It has often been said that the motive in a murder case loses its significance where the ocular account is clear and credible. The present case is obviously not one of this category because the very presence of the two eye-witnesses at the spot has been challenged and their testimony has been seriously assailed as totally false. Therefore, the virtual absence of motive in the present case assumes considerable significance. On this aspect, the trial court has, however, observed that even though there was no sufficient motive for the accused to commit the crime yet the absence of motive loses much significance in the presence of direct evidence. Now, once it is held that there was no sufficient motive for the crime at all, the version of the prosecution in the present case assumes a rather farcical aspect. As will appear hereinafter in great detail, the admitted position is that it was a sunset time and there was no artificial street light at the alleged place of occurrence. It is not even the prosecution case that the accused party had in any way expected the complainant party to pass that way at the relevant time. It does not stand to reason as to why and how the accused at the very moment took in his head to open an assault on the complainant party. The evidence of Sukhminder Singh and Bahadur Singh P Ws reveals that Gurdev Singh, brother of the accused, had a grudge against Sukhminder Singh PW and on the same day at about 5.00 p.m., Darbara Singh accused and his brothers Gurdev Singh and Inder Singh accused had threatened Sukhminder Singh to teach him a lesson. It emerges from the evidence of these witnesses that on the fateful day at about 6 p m when they were going to the police station on a tractor driven by Sukhminder Singh, the accused Darbara Singh fired a shot from his gun aiming at the latter but the same hit Jagrup Singh which proved fatal. It is said that the accused while running away fired some more shots This version of the alleged eye-witnesses appears to be too farcical to be accepted at its face value. Investigating Officer lifted only one empty cartridge from the spot. Even if we agree with this version of the prosecution that the accused had fired some more shots while running away from the spot, he would net have fired shots in the air but aimed at Sukhminder Singh with whom the accused party had a grudge. The two eye-witnesses are categorical in their statements that there were residential houses at a distance of about 20/25 Karams from the place of occurrence and they would have us believe that despite the firing of four or five gunshots, not one of the inmates of those houses had come to the spot long thereafter. This by itself seems to be wholly improbable if not farcical, even giving much leeway for the known fact that the witnesses are usually reluctant to come forward in murder cases. In any case it seems to be plain as a day that the persons whose houses lie at some distance from the spot have not come forward even remotely to depose in regard to this crime. The conduct of these eye-witnesses at the alleged time of occurrence and thereafter is also not immune from censure. They have stated that neither they raised alarm at the alleged time of occurrence nor they talked to anybody in the village about this incident. It appears to us that the reason suggested by the eye witnesses for their presence at the spot is more imagnative than factual.

The time and the manner of recording the First Information Report in the present case are again matters which are not above suspicion. The defence has taken a firm stand that the present case was framed in the village after enquiries by the police Sukhminder Singh PW 3 has categorically stated that the report was recorded by the police at the spot at the instance of his father Bahadur Singh. Whatever may be said regarding that stance, it appears to be plain that the First Information Report is the present case does not rule out the possibility of considerable delay and the opportunity of consultations and confabulations before the investigating agency may have found itself compelled to name the assailant for the murder at a distance of about 20 Kerms from the village abadi. The eye-witness account fixes the time of murder at about 6.00 p m., Sukhminder Singh would have us believe that immediately after the occurrence he went to Pritam Singh Sarpanch of his village to inform him about this incident and within a few minutes thereafter he along with the said Sarpanch came to the spot and then he (Sukhminder Singh) along with his father Bahadur Singh went to Police Station Bhadaur where the latter lodged the First Information Report at 8-30 p.m. Police Station Bhadaur is stated to be at (sic) distance of about 3 miles from the place of occurrance. The Special Report in the case reached the hands of the Judicial Magistrate at (sic) at 1.00 a.m. on 18-10-1982. It has to borne in mind that Police Station Bhadaur is at a distance of about 35/36 kms from Barnala. The occurrence was not reported to the police by Bahadur Singh for about 1-1/2 hours, It appears to us that the investigating agency had a considerable time at their disposal to frame the First Information Report in the present case.

The eye witnesses account in probable and (sic) as it is, appears to be totally falsified when tested on the anvil of the conclusive circumstantial evidence in this case. The prosecution sought to establish that the accused had fired more than one shot but the investigating Officer could recover only one empty cartridge from the spot. This fact has almost a near fatal effect on the prosecution case. It belies the eye witness account almost totally. It raises an obvious doubt that in fact, the two eye-witnesses were not there at all and have apparently concocted the story of the crime latter from the number and nature of the injuries found on the body of the victim. The other suspicious circumstances in the case is the patent conflict betwixt the medical evidence and the oral account. Both the eye-witnesses have consistently stated that the victim was fired at from a distance of about four or five feet Dr Parmod Kumar Jain who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jagrup Singh did not find any blackening, scorching or tattooing around the wound. He is categoric in his assertion that the gun powder and the cartridge must cause scorching if it is fired from a distance of up to 3'' and these signs may be absent when the weapon is pressed tightly against the skin of the body. Dr Jain has given a definite opinion that the injury was caused by pressing the barrel of the gun tightly against the skin of the victim. The prosecution, thus appears to be falsified on its claim that the victim was fired at from a distance of about 4 or 5 feet.

For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused. His convictions and sentences cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Sd/- Pritpal Singh, J.