Gurbax Singh and Paramjit Singh @ Golu vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh, J.—This order shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals filed by Gurbax Singh and Paramjit Singh @ Golu against judgment and order dated 23.10.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby appellant Gurbax Singh has been convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and appellant Paramjit Singh @ Golu has been convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; and further appellant Gurbax Singh has also been convicted u/s 307 Indian Penal Code and Paramjit Singh @ Golu has been convicted u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine further undergo RI for 6 months. Both these sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

Appellant Paramjit Singh @ Golu besides being appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 23-DB of 2003 has also inadvertently filed another appeal bearing No. Crl. Appeal No. 297- DB of 2004, directed against the same judgment and order dated 23.10.2002.

The prosecution was set in motion on the statement (Ex. PN) of injured/complainant Vikram Singh (PW6) before ASI Pritam Singh (PW9) at 8.40 a.m. recorded at GGS Medical Hospital, Faridkot after having been declared fit to make statement at 7.45 a.m. (Ex. PJ) by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW2) in respect of the occurrence on 15.05.2000 at 6.30 a.m. Statement (Ex. PN) of complainant Vikram Singh (PW6) reads as under:

I have passed 10+2 and have appeared in the test for admission in E.T.T. In these days I work with my father, who is a photographer. Today, in the morning I was lying asleep in my house along with my family. It will be about 6.30 a.m. that the call-bell of our house rang. I opened the door and found that Golu son of Gobind Singh, resident of Dogar Basti, Street No. 10, Faridkot was standing in the street. He told me that Gurbax Singh and Lakhvir Singh @ Bahiya were standing on the main road and they were to talk with me. I went with him. I was ahead of Golu. When we reached near the turning of the street on the main road, Lakhvir Singh @ Bhaiya son of Sher Singh, Bazigar, resident of Street No. 10, Dogar Basti Faridkot and Gurbax Singh resident of Street No. 5, Balbir Basti, Faridkot were standing there. Golu shouted that I should be caught and should not escape. Then Gurbax Singh and Lakhvir Singh took out the straight swords (kirch) kept concealed in their clothes. I started running on the main road towards police station Sadar. Gurbax Singh chased me and gave a kirch blow to me which hit me on the back of my left shoulder. My friends Pardip Kumar @ Peep on of Des Raj and his brother Suresh Kumar, caste Aggarwal, resident of Near Jain School, Faridkot, who were passing by that side, tried to rescue me. Then Golu gave a rapier blow on Pardip Kumar which hit on his left flank. Then Lakhvir Singh gave his rapier blow on Pardip Kumar which hit in his abdomen below the umblicus. Then Gurbax Singh gave his straight sword blow to Pardip Kumar which hit on the right side of his chest Pardip Kumar fell down on the road. I and Suresh Kumar raised noise ''killed killed''. Then the accused ran away with their respective weapons from the spot. I and Suresh Kumar saw that Pardip Kumar was struggling for life. In the meantime a canter of police station city Faridkot came there in which ASI Pritam Singh along with the police party was present. They started loading Pardip Kumar in the canter to take him to hospital for treatment. My uncle Harjit Singh brought me on a scooter to the hospital and got me admitted. After a short while, ASI Pritam Singh brought Pardip Kumar in the Medical Hospital, Faridkot, where I came to know that Pardip Kumar has died. The casue of grievance is that Sonu, my father''s sister from the relations, had stayed in our house for about 2/3 months about 3 years ago. At that time, Gurbax Singh, Golue and Lakhvir Singh, all the three, had bad intention towards my father''s sister. For this reason there had been a quarrel between us and Gurbax Singh etc. Due to this grudge, Gurbax Singh, Golu and Lakhvir Singh have caused me injuries and killed Pardip Kumar by causing injuries with the rapier. The accused with their common intention have caused injuries with the straight swords to me and Pardip Kumar. Action be taken, I have made my statement. I have heard it and is correct.

On the basis of above reproduced statement, a formalized FIR (Ex. PN/1) was lodged at 8.55 a.m. at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot. Special Report reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot at 10.15 a.m. Sub-Inspector Darshan Singh (PW1 1) after recording the FIR, prepared the inquest report (Ex. PF) and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He lifted blood stained earth from the spot and took into possession the belongings of the deceased. Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal(PW2) at 12.50 p.m. The blood stained shirt (Ex. P/4) of the injured/complainant Vikram Singh was also taken into possession. Accused Lakhvir Singh was arrested on 17.05.2000 and upon his disclosure statement (Ex. PX), he got recovered a blood stained kirch (Ex. P/13). On 18.05.2000 the investigation was handed over to ASI Des Raj (PW13), who arrested accused Paramjit Singh @ Golu on the same day i.e. 18.05.2000 and upon his disclosure statement (Ex. PT), blood stained kirch (Ex. P15) was recovered and taken into possession. On 26.05.2000, the investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh (PW12), who arrested accused- appellant Gurbax Singh on 30.05.2000. On his disclosure statement (Ex. PO) kirch (Ex. P14) was got recovered and taken into possession.

On completion of investigation three accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and led documentary evidence to support its case. The accused appellant Gurbax Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he was admitted in the hospital of Dr. R.N. Singh during 14.05.2000 to 16.05.2000. Accused Paramjit Singh @ Golu also denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. Accused Lakhvir Singh also denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He further stated that on 15.05.2000 he was playing basket-ball in Nehru Stadium under the supervision of his coach Surjit Singh. Said Surjit Singh was produced as DW/1 by Lakhvir Singh. The medical certificate issued by Dr. R.N. Singh, was produced as Exs. D1 and D2 by accused-appellant Gurbax Singh. No other evidence was led by the accused-appellants.

The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record convicted both the accused-appellants and sentenced them u/s 302 IPC as aforesaid for the murder of Pardip and further sentenced them as aforesaid u/s 307 IPC qua the injured/complainant Vikram Singh (PW6). However, accused Lakhvir Singh was acquitted as it was deposed by both the eye witnesses i.e. Injured/complainant Vikram Singh (PW6) and Suresh (PW7) (brother of the deceased) that accused Lakhvir Singh was not the same Lakhvir, whom they had seen at the time of occurrence.

We have heard Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab and with their able assistance perused the evidence on record.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the element of motive on the part of the accused-appellants to link them with the alleged commission of crime, which was a blind murder for which the appellants have been falsely implicated.

We are not impressed with the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. The case of the prosecution is based on consistent eye witnesses account of Vikram Singh (PW6), who was also injured in the incident and Suresh Kumar (PW7). Vikram Singh (PW6) has deposed that on 15.05.2000 at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning Paramjit Singh @ Golu had come to his house and told him that Gurbax Singh and Lakhvir @ Bahiya had called him and that they were standing in street No. 4 on the main road of the area of Dogar Basti, Faridkot. He accompanied Paramjit Singh @ Golu and when he reached the turning of the street, while walking ahead of Paramjit Singh @ Golu, Paramjit Singh @ Golu asked Gurbax Singh and Bahiya to catch him. Then all the three accused took out their kirch from underneath their shirts, then he ran towards street No. 5 and all the three accused followed him. Gurbax Singh caught him at a little distance from street No. 4 and gave a kirch blow on his left flank. Suresh Kumar (PW7) and Pardip Kumar (since deceased), who were coming on cycles, stopped while reaching near him. Pardip Kumar tried to rescue him from the accused and then Gurbax Singh accused while leaving him (Vikram) caught hold of Pardip Kumar and Paramjit Singh @ Golu gave a kirch blow on the left flank of Pardip Kumar and then Lakhvir gave a kirch blow on the abdomen of Pardip and Gurbax Singh gave a kirch blow on the right side of nipple of Pardip Kumar, as a result of which Pardip Kumar fell down and then Lakhvir Singh gave a kirch blow on the right side of Pardip Kumar while he was lying on the ground. Thereafter, all the accused ran away. In the meantime, a police canter had reached there in which ASI Pritam Singh was traveling along with other police officials and they moved Pardip Kumar to the Hospital. He further deposed that the motive behind the occurrence is that one Sonu daughter of Sh. Pritam Singh resident of Patiala, sister of his father''s Muhun Bola brother had spent 1/2 months in their house and the accused had an evil eye on her and they used to harass her on telephone. As the complainant party had prevented them to do so, the accused-persons had developed grudge and annoyance against them. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that prior to occurrence, three years back, they had quarreled with the accused with regard to Sonu, however no report with the police was lodged.

The eye witness account of injured Vikram Singh (PW6) with regard to the manner of occurrence has been fully supported by Suresh Kumar (PW7), who has deposed on identical lines. The ocular version of both the eye-witnesses is further supported by the medical version. Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW2) has deposed that on 15.05.2000 at 7.35 a.m., he conducted the medico legally examination of Vikram Singh (PW6) and found incised penetrating wound on the back of chest on the left side with fresh bleedings. On receipt of X-ray report and surgeon''s opinion the said injury was declared ''dangerous to life''. He also conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Pardip Kumar on 15.05.2000 at 12.15 p.m. and found the following injuries:

Incised penetrating wound 2 c.m.X 1 c.m. present on left lateral wall of chest 10 cms below axillary fold. Clotted blood was present. Bleeding was coming out of wound on pressing.

Incised penetrating wound 1.5 c.m.X .5 c.m. present on right side of chest 4 c.m. above the right nipple.

Incised penetrating wound 1 c.m.X .5 c.m. present on left side of abdomen 3 cms below umblicus.

Incised wound 2 c.m.X 1 c.m. present on right side on lower half laterally.

The cause of death was opined to be hemorrhage and shock, as a result of injury No. 1, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature and were result of sharp edged weapon. He further stated that the injuries from the respective ''kirch'' belonging to the accused could be caused by the respective weapon of accused as stated by the prosecution. Thus, we find the evidence of truthful witness Vikram Singh (PW/6) to be trustworthy and reliable and fully corroborated by the medical evidence and as such the evidence of motive looses its significance.

It was next contended that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution despite the occurrence having taken place in a busy street of the town and therefore, the evidence of the interested witnesses could not be considered as credible.

This argument is also devoid of any merit. The occurrence is of at around 6.30 a.m. in the street comprising of shops, it is very natural for the place to be deserted at that time of early morning. Both the eye witnesses have deposed that there was no one else present at the time of occurrence. The defence has not been able to shatter the testimony of injured eye witnesses Vikram Singh (PW/6) and Suresh Kumar (PW/7) in their cross-examination. It is not the case of defence that eye witnesses PW6 and PW/7 were not present at the place of occurrence.

We further find that the case of the prosecution is fortified by the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PHH and PJJ), which reveals that the sample of blood stained soil lifted from the place of occurrence was found to be stained with blood and the weapons of offence i.e. respective kirchs (swords) of both the accused-appellants were also reported to be stained with human blood.

No other point was urged.

In view of aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants of the offence they have been charged without any shadow of doubt. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.