Harlaik Singh vs State of Punjab

Arvind Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby in case FIR No. 77 dated 24.12.1985 under Sections 302/307 IPC 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Khamanon, the accused-appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 307 IPC and 30 of the Arms Act, for having committed the murder of Raghbir Singh and attempting to murder Kuljit Singh by using his licensed 315 bore rifle. u/s 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for two years; u/s 307 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months and u/s 30 of the Arms Act, to undergo RI for six months.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 24.12.1986, complainant Kuljit Singh made statement to the police that on 23.12.1986, he and his brother Raghbir Singh had gone to Ropar in order to enquire about the Arms licence from Balwinder Singh, Arms dealer, on motor-cycle but the same was not ready. His brother Raghbir Singh was having his licensed gun with him. From Ropar, both of them came to Khamanon and stopped at petrol pump for taking petrol where no petrol was available and only diesel was available. However, the petrol pump owner arranged two bottles of petrol for them. In the meanwhile, Raghbir Singh talked to accused Harlaik Singh on telephone, being his friend that since he(Harlaik Singh) had become the chairman of the Market Committee, he had not entertained him. Raghbir Singh then told Kuljit Singh that they had been invited by Harlaik Singh to his house for a party and accordingly, both of them reached his house. There Harlaik Singh, his brother Harcharan Singh and Shera, his wife''s brother and Bhoop Singh were taking liquor. Bhoop Singh then left. They then consumed liquor. After one bottle of liquor had been consumed, Harlaik Singh sent Harcharan Singh and Shera for fetching one more bottle of liquor. According to the complainant, since his brother Raghbir Singh owed Rs. 13,000/- to Harlaik Singh, he started compelling Raghbir Singh to pay the same and they started fighting but he (complainant) separated them. When Harcharan Singh etc. came along with another bottle of liquor, they consumed one peg each. Complainant then went in the bathroom in the court-yard of the house of the accused for urination and when he came back, he saw his brother Raghbir Singh and accused quarrelling with each other. At that time, the gun of Raghbir Singh was lying nearby. Complainant again separated both of them. Thereafter, at about 7/7.30 PM accused Harlaik Singh picked up 315 bore rifle from inside and went on the roof through the stairs inside the house and fired a shot from the rifle which hit the left thigh of Raghbir Singh who fell down at the spot. Complainant then picked up the double-barrel gun of his brother which was already loaded. Harcharan Singh, brother of the accused and Shera, his brother-in-law, caught hold of the complainant and asked him not to do anything. Harlaik Singh however hurled abuses from the roof of the house and told his brother and Shera to leave the complainant and move to one side. Due to fear, complainant ran towards the street and then the accused again fired from his gun. Complainant concealed himself in the fields, abandoning his motor-cycle there and in the early hours of the morning, came to the police station to lodge the report, where an FIR, Exhibit PJ was recorded by the police. The 12 bore double barrel gun belonging to deceased Raghbir Singh was produced by the complainant, which was unloaded and two live cartridges were recovered, which were then taken into possession vide memo. Exhibit PK. The spot was inspected by the Investigating Officer and the dead body of Raghbir Singh was found lying in the court-yard of the house of the accused. The photographs of the place of occurrence were taken. Inquest proceedings on the dead-body were completed and the dead body was sent to the Civil Hospital, Samrala, for post-mortem examination where Dr. Raj Kumar (PW-1) conducted the autopsy. Besides, complainant who was injured, was also medico-legally examined and abrasions were found on his person. Certain articles were also taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos. Accused was arrested and 315 bore rifle was duly recovered upon his disclosure statement along with cartridges and licence. Upon completion of investigation of the case, accused-appellant was challaned. After being produced in Court, the accused was charge-sheeted u/s 302, 307 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. Raj Kumar Garg, PW-2 M.L. Dabra, SDO (Telephones), PW-3 Dr. R.L. Taneja, PW-4 Mulkh Raj, PW-5 Jit Singh, PW-6 Rupinder Singh Bhullar, PW-7 Gurmail Singh, PW-8 Kuljit Singh (complainant), PW-9 SI Manjit Singh, PW-10 ASI Malkiat Singh, PW-11 S.L. Prabhakar, PW-12 SI Rattanjit Singh, PW-13 Bhupinder Singh and PW-14 Amrik Singh, SHO. and after tendering into evidence the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Serologist and Chemical Examiner, Exhibits PX, PY and PZ, closed its evidence.

Thereafter, accused-appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and put incriminating evidence appearing against him to which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, no evidence in defence was led by him.

The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide his judgment and order held the accused-appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place on 23.12.1986 at about 7/7.30 PM in the house of the accused-appellant. The FIR had been lodged by PW-8 Kuljit Singh in the morning of 24.12.1986 at about 6 AM. The foremost argument of counsel for the appellant is that there has been delay of about 11 hours in lodging the FIR and this time has been utilized for consultations and deliberations for implicating the appellant falsely. The contention is meritless. The FIR in a criminal case, particularly in a murder case, assumes great importance. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. However, every delay in lodging the FIR alone is not sufficient to discard the whole prosecution case when there has been sufficient explanation for delayed lodging of the FIR. In the instant case, it was winter season. The night had already fallen. It has come in the statement of PW-8 Kuljit Singh that after firing upon the deceased, when he tried to retreat, he was caught hold of by Shera and Harcharan Singh, the relations of the accused-appellant who also happened to be there and so much so, the accused-appellant had also fired a shot which could not hit him and he managed to escape from the spot. It cannot be expected that immediately after the occurrence, PW-8 Kuljit Singh would rush to the police station to lodge the First Information Report as it has not been disputed that in those days, terrorism was at its peak and further, he had also seen his brother Raghbir Singh being shot by the accused-appellant and thus, would be under shock. The element of fear also was but natural. This led PW-8 Kuljit Singh to conceal himself in the fields for the night, which is natural as he will not take the risk of his life as fear was in his mind that the other relations of the accused-appellant may not be following him and he may not be attacked again. In this backdrop of the facts, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the FIR and if at all it is construed, that has been sufficiently explained by him and the explanation forthcoming is again quite natural.

The entire case rests upon the statement of PW-8 Kuljit Singh. He is none else but the brother of the deceased. His testimony has been questioned on account of relationship. No doubt, he was related to the deceased but his relationship itself cannot be said to be suffice to discard his statement. There is no absolute law that evidence of a relation witness is not entitled to any weight. But this very circumstance would add to the value of his evidence because he would be interested in ensuring that the real culprits responsible for the murder are punished and not the innocent persons. No doubt, he is a solitary witness but the evidence of a single witness may sustain sentence of death whereas host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support single charge of hurt. Thus, the case of the prosecution cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved only by one witness nor it can be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by the other witnesses. Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable and consistent with the case of the prosecution. PW-8 Kuljit Singh is very categoric in his statement that on 23.12.1986, he along with his brother Raghbir Singh was going on motorcycle and when they were at the petrol pump at Khamanon, they thought of visiting Harlaik Singh, (accused-appellant) who since had become the Chairman of the Market Committee and in this context, Raghbir Singh had a talk with Harlaik Singh who invited them to his house. Raghbir Singh was having a gun with him. They went to the house of Harlaik Singh where his brother Harcharan Singh and other relations, namely, Shera and Bhoop Singh were present. They had taken liquor together. He further stated that his brother Raghbir Singh owed Rs. 13,000/- to Harlaik Singh who had been pressing for taking back the same and in this context, they had grappled. This led the accused-appellant to pick up 315 bore rifle and he then went to the roof of the house and fired which hit on the left thigh of Raghbir Singh. He also stated that when he tried to pick up the rifle of his brother, he was caught hold of by Harcharan Singh and Shera. His brother had died at the spot. He after having got released himself from them, ran away leaving the motor-cycle there, though the accused had also fired at him in the meantime. Counsel for the appellant has developed the argument that it has come in the cross-examination of PW-8 Kuljit Singh that he as well as his brother Raghbir Singh were involved in murder cases and thus, were involved in terrorist activities and in this context, they came to the house of the accused-appellant and in order to save himself, the accused-appellant had fired in self-defence. This plea is not tenable, the same having surfaced for the first time during the course of arguments, which has surprised the Court as well. Accused-appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has not said anything in support of this plea. Further, no such suggestion regarding this plea had been put to PW-8 Kuljit Singh in his cross-examination. It has also not come in the evidence of any police official if the deceased and so as his brother Kuljit Singh were involved in terrorist activities during those days. The defence has referred to the statement of PW-12 SI Rattanjit Singh who stated that on 23.12.1986, he had received a telephonic call from Harlaik Singh, Chairman, informing that two persons on motor-cycle No. PUN-4338 had come to his house and one of them was armed with 12 bore rifle and he had fired at one of them while the other had managed to escape with his gun and for this, he had sent ASI Gurmeet Singh to the spot. This statement also does not help the defence in any manner for variety of reasons; firstly, Harlaik Singh, accused, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has not stated that he had made any call to the police about the said fact; secondly, from the cross-examination of PW-12 SI Rattanjit Singh, it is transpired that he himself is not sure if the caller of said call was Harlaik Singh or anyone else was posing as Harlaik Singh; and thirdly, ASI Gurmeet Singh though was given up by the prosecution but had there been any truth found by ASI Gurmeet Singh as per information received by PW-12 SI Rattanjit Singh, the defence could very well examine him but no such effort was made and as such, accused-appellant cannot derive any benefit from the statement of PW-12 SI Rattanjit Singh. PW-8 Kuljit Singh was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but he stood firm to his stand. He is an injured and as such, a stamped witness. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement in any manner which otherwise inspires confidence.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has stated that this is a case where it lacks intention and as such, it is not a case of homicide. There is force in this contention. The entire evidence indicates that it was a sudden flair-up while taking drinks(liquor). The appellant and the deceased were in an inebriated condition and there is every possibility of their actions going beyond their control. PW-1 Dr. Raj Kumar who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Raghbir Singh also authenticates the presence of liquor in the stomach contents. Further, the intention to kill can be derived from the nature and the seat of injuries. Only one shot was fired upon the deceased and that too on the non-vital part of the body. Dr. Raj Kumar has also opined that if timely medical aid would have been provided, he might have been saved as the injuries were not on the vital part of the body. It has also been opined that the concentration of alcohal in blood and intoxication had further added to the shock and haemorrhage. This further leads to the inference that the death was not directly connected with the injury.

Keeping in view the entire factors, we are of the view that the accused-appellant could only be held liable for offence u/s 304 Part II IPC. Therefore, we allow this appeal to this extent while setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC imposed by the Court below upon the accused-appellant and accordingly, convict him u/s 304 Part II IPC and award him sentence to the period already undergone by him, which is stated to be little above 8 years. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact.

Appeal stands allowed in the manner indicated above.