Harkirat Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 68 (DB) of 1989 filed by Harkirat Singh and Criminal Revision No. 372 of 1989 filed by Bhagwanti.

Paramjit Singh, Raghbir Singh alias Kalu, Lakhbir singh, Harikirat Singh and Narinder Singh were tried by Sessions Judge Kapurthala who vide his order dated February 2, 1989 acquitted Paramjit singh, Raghbir Singh, Lakhbir Singha and Narinder Singh but convicted Harkirat Singh and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to IPC pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 302. IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 307 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling aggrieved, Harkirat Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 68(DB) of 1989.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that Walaiti Ram PW made his statement to ASI Harbhajan Singh in front of Police Station Bholath on November 28, 1986 stating therein that he is resident of village Bagrain and is employed in Government School in the village. On November 28, 1986 at about 10.00 A.M. he alongwith his brother Kharaiti Lal, Kharaiti Lal son of Bihari Lal and Ajit Singh Sarpanch came to fill the foundations of his plot measuring 17 Marlas situated within the revenue limits of Bholath town. He had purchased this plot. He was having a dispute over the plot with Narinder Singh etc., resident of Bholath which was decided by the Court in his favour. Patwari and Kanungo had got delivered possession of the plot to him. They had just started filling the foundation when Narinder Singh, Harkirat Singh armed with Pistol, Paramjit Singh with a "Sua", Lakhbir Singh and Kalu with a "Dang" each some towards them while raising "Lalkara". Narinder Singh remarked that that day they would be taught a lesson for filling the foundations of the plot. Harkirat Singh accused who was armed with a Pistol started firing shots. The shots hit his brother Kharaiti Lal on the back side of his right shoulder and right elbow while turning backwards. One shot also hit Gurmit Singh who was passing nearby. They also put up resistance in self defence and some of the accused also received brickbats injuries. On their raising alarm, the accused ran away from the spot together with their weapons. He got his accused ran away from the spot together with their weapons. He got his brother Kharaih Lal admitted in Primary Health Centre, Bholath. The doctor after considering the condition of his brother Kharaiti Lal to be critical referred him to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala.

ASI Harbhajan Singh made his endorsement on the statement and sent the same to Police Station Bholath for the registration of a case on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. He then went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex. PHH and lifted bloodsustained earth from the place of occurrence. Thereafter he went to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala where he recorded statement of Gurmit Singh. On November 29, 1986 he again went to civil Hospital, Kapurthala and prepared inquest report Ex. PB. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination.

After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and tried. Paramjit Singh, Raghbir Singh, Lakhbir Singh and Narinder Singh were acquitted but Harikat Singh was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case, examined PW 1 Dr. Baldev Singh who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kharaiti Lal and had found the following injuries :

Lacerated wound 1 cm x .2 cm on the back of right elbow just above the cleoranon. Charring of skin surrounded the wound.

Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x .5 cm with inverted margins present in the right infra scapular region 14 cm from the midline. Liquified blood was coming out from the wound.

Surgical (vene Section) wounds present above both medial maleili.

On dissection and probing injury No. 2 was found to be leading to tract passing through the thoratic wall and entering the pleural cavity after piercing the pleura. Approximately 100 ml. of blood was found accumulated in the cavity. The tract was further found entering the liver through the superior surface of right to be continuing further to the left. The tract of the wound was found continuing through the substance of right lung while passing towards and medially. A perforation was noted in the diaphragm. The tract made an exit from the liver and entered the subcutaneous tissue. At the end of the tract in the subcutaneous tissue a metal piece was recovered embedded.

In his opinion all the injures were antemortem in nature. Death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury No. 2 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Exact time that elapsed between injuries and death was approximately 24 hours and between death and post mortem examination three hours.

PW 2 Dr. Jagjit Singh had medicolegally examined Gurmit Singh on November 28, 1986 at 12.30 noon and had found the following injuries on his person :

Lacerated punctured wound with the inverted margins 1 cm x .5 cm on the inner side of the left thigh just below its middle. There was corresponding tear in the trouser. The wound was bleeding and X ray was advised.

Lacerated punctured wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm with the inverted margins on the back side of the left thigh just below its middle. There was corresponding tear in the trouser. Wound was bleeding. X ray was advised.

According to him, weapon used was fire arm and the duration was within six hours. The injuries were kept under observation.

He also medico legally examined Lakhbir Singh on November 28, 1986 at 1.00 p.m. and had found the following injuries :

Reddish bruise 12 cm x 3 cm on the top of the left shoulder.

Abraison 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the outer aspect of the right leg just below the knee.

Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the tip of the right little finger.

Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the tip of the right ring finger with haemotoma below the nail. Xray was advised.

Reddish bruise 5 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of the right chest in the supra scapular region.

Injury No. 4 was kept under observation. Rest of the injuries were declared as simple. Injuries were inflicted with blunt weapon and duration was within four hours.

On November 28, 1986 at 1.10 p.m. he also medicolegally examined Paramjit Singh and found the following injuries on his person :

Reddish bruise with swelling 4 cm x 4 cm on the left cheek with abrasions 2.5 x .5 cm over it. Xray was advised.

Reddish bruise with abrasion 5 x 1.5 cm on the right forehead and temporal region.

Reddish bruise 9 x 1 cm on the back of the right shoulder.

Abrasion 3 cm x 2.5 cm on the back of the left fore arm near its middle.

Abrasion 9 x 2 cm on the back of the right arm just above its middle.

Abrasion 2.5 x 0.5 cm on the back of the right leg just above the knee.

Abrasion 1.5 x 0.5 cm on the back of the left lower leg just above its middle.

Injury No. 1 was kept under observations. Rest of the injuries were declared simple. Weapon used was blunt and duration was within four hours. Injury No. 1 too was declared simple after receipt of X ray report.

PW 6 Dr. Surjit Kaur stated that on November 28, 1986 at 11.20 a.m. Paramjit Singh, Kharaiti Lal, Lakhbir Singh and Gurmit Singh came to Primary Health Centre, with multiple injuries on their persons and she had sent information to this effect to S.H.O. Police Station Bolath vide chit Ex. PV.

PW 3 Gurmit Singh who is alleged to have received gun short injury when he was passing near the place of occurrence did not support the prosecution case. He was declared hostile at the request of learned Public Prosecutor and was cross examined.

PW 4 Kharaiti Lal son of Bihari Lal and PW 5, Ajit Singh are the eye witnesses of occurrence. They have given the details of prosecution case and have stated that in their presence Harikarat Singh accused fired shots which hit Kharaiti Lal resulting in his death. They further stated that one shot also hit Gurmit Singh PW.

PW 7 Rajinder Kumar Stenotypist stated that Narinder Singh accused surrendered in the Court on December 1, 1986 in his presence. He also produced his licence for the revolver.

PW 8 Puran Singh Patwari deposed that on July 31, 1986 he delivered possession of plot No. 53/25 measuring 17 Marlas to Walaiti Ram.

PW 9 Hari Kishan Lal Draftsman had prepared scaled plan Ex PA of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes.

PW 10 Bhagwati has also narrated the prosecution case as told to her by her husband Walaiti Ram.

PW 11 Gur Lal Arms Clerk stated that arms licence of 32 bore revolver was issued in the name of Narinder Singh accused.

PW 12 Jagdish Lal Ahlmad had produced the copy of order Ex. DD, passed by District Judge, Kapurthala.

PW 13 ASI Harbhajan Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has given the details of investigation conducted by him.

After the close of prosecution case, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the prosecution allegations and have pleaded false implication.

In their defence, the accused have examined two defence witnesses.

DW 1 Joginder Singh stated that he worked as DSP at Kapurthala from 14.7.1986 to 30.11.1987. Report made by Bholath police was forwarded by him. Accused Harkirat Singh and Narinder Singh were discharged by the Court.

DW 2 M.R. Garg, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate deposed that he was working as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Kapurthala on 21.1.1987. JUDGMENT dated 21.1.1987 Ex. DD was passed by him. It is in his hand and is signed by him. The said order was passed by him on the application Ex. DE presented and endorsed by D.S.P. Joginder Singh. Vide his order Ex. DD Narinder Singh and Harkirat Singh were discharged.

In the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Harkirat Singh and Narinder Singh accused were shown as innocent. Smt. Bhagwanti widow of Walaiti Ram filed a complaint against the accused in the Court of Committing Magistrate on June 4, 1987. Consequently Harkirat Singh and Narinder Singh accused were also committed for trial. The challan presented by the police and the complaint filed by Smt. Bhagwanti were consolidated for trial.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, with their help.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that PW 4 Kharaiti Lal and PW 5, Ajit Singh in their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had attributed firing to Raghbir Singh accused whereas in Court they have stated that firing was done by Harkirat Singh. He has further argued that even in her report under Section 17 Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that Raghbir Singh accused had fired the shot and in view of this, Harkirat Singh cannot be convicted.

We have considered the arguments and find no force in the same.

PW 4 Kharaiti Lal has made his statement in the inquest proceedings and a perusal of the same shows that he had mentioned in that statement that it was Harikirat Singh who had fired the shots from the pistol. Even in the First Information Report, it is clearly mentioned that Harikirat Singh has had fired the shots. The statement in the inquest report and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on the same day i.e. November 29, 1986. The contradiction in these two documents shows that the investigation was not fairly conducted in this case. It appears that an importance to the fact that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that it was Raghbir Singh who had fired the shots. The case of the prosecution from the very beginning is that it was has who had fired the shots and it was maintained by the prosecution witnesses while appearing in Court also. If the case of the prosecution witnesses had been that it was Raghbir Singh who had fired the shots, the complaint which was filed would not have been filed. As the complainant party was not satisfied with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which shows that Raghbir Singh had fired, so Smt. Bhagwati filed a complaint stating therein that it was he who had fired the fatal shot. The complaint and the report under Section 173 Cr P.C. were clubbed together. In view of these circumstances we have no hesitation that it was he who had fired fatal shoot.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further criticised the prosecution witnesses saying that Kharaiti Lal is the brotherinlaw of the deceased and Ajit Singh PW 5 is party man of Kharaiti Lal We do not find any handicap in the testimony of Kharaiti Lal PW 4 & Ajit Singh PW5, Both have made consistent statements. nothing has been brought on record which may justify discarding of their testimony. As the prosecution case is supported by independent and consistent testimony of the witnesses against whom nothing has been brought on the record, we do not find any justification to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. This appeal has no force and the same is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal. We also find no force in the he Revision filed by Bhagwanti widow of Walaiti Ram complainant and dismiss the same.