Jai Singh and anr. vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Accused appellants Balwant Singh and Jai Singh are both sons of Ajmer Singh. Ajmer Singh their father was lessee of 16/17 killas of panchayat land in village Mohan for two years from 1982 to 1984. Thereafter the Panchayat decided to get this land vacated from Ajmer Singh and get eucalyptus tress planted therein from the Forest Department. They obtained an order of ejectment against. Ajmer Singh in February, 1985. Ajmer Singh then filed a civil suit for restraining the Panchayat from planting eucalyptus trees in the aforesaid land. This was dismissed in June, 1985. Thereafter the Panchayat got eucalyptus trees planted in their land from the Forest Department; after getting it vacated from Ajmer Singh. Action of the Panchayat, however, made Ajmer Singh and his sons the sworn and bitterest enemies of Sarpanch Ram Singh and member Panchayat Gurpal Singh; who were both instrumental in getting the land vacated from Ajmer Singh. Gurbax Singh and Sukhdev Singh are both alleged to have evicted Ajmer Singh from this land. Ajmer Singh and his sons were, therefore, after their blood as well on account of all these persons having deprived them of the means of their livelihood.

On 2nd January, 1986 around 4.00 P.M. Joginder Singh, nephew of Gurpal Singh, member Panchayat, reported to the police in Police Station Sadar Ambala that around 2.00 P.M. on that day when his uncle Gurpal Singh and Sarpanch Ram Singh were at/around the Kotha of Piara Singh to find out the alleged trespass by him (Piara Singh) on Panchayat lands through its demarcation by Patwari Sugan Masih, Balwant Singh son of Ajmer Singh came there along with another young man, of wheatish complexion wearing Khakhi cap and pant and wrapping a blanket above it on his body and both of them stood by the side of the Sarpanch and Gurpal Singh presumably awaiting the arrival of Jai Singh. Jai Singh then came there from the side of his tubewell carrying a .12 bore country made pistol. Immediately on arrival Jai Singh fired a shot from the pistol carried by him aimed at Gurpal Singh; while standing on the northern side of the Kotha of Piara Singh. According to the author of the First Information Report this shot hit Gurpal Singh on his left arm above the elbow. Both Gurpal Singh and Ram Singh then ran for safety. Balwant Singh then took out the rifle carried by him from underneath the fold of the blanket worn by him and fired a shot from it aimed at Ram Singh which hit him on the left eye. Gurpal Singh allegedly got entangled in barbed wire while running away from the place of occurrence and fell down, on the ground. Balwant Singh then fired three more shots from his rifle upon these two now deceased in Ram Singh and Gurpal Singh and the khaki wheatish complexion man gave them both dagger blows in lying down position. All the tree assailants then went towards Bhersan through the fields proclaiming that they had already killed two of their enemies in Ram Singh and Gurpal Singh and were now proceeding to kill their two other associates in Gurbax Singh and Sukhdev Singh; who had got the Panchayat lands vacated from them. Gurbax Singh and Sukhdev Singh met them on the way while coming from the western side of Gobhi Sarson fields of Kalal Majra. Balwant Singh. fired a shot from his rifle aimed at the face of Gurbax Singh which hit him in the mouth and killed him. The khaki clad man aforesaid then gave dagger blows to Gurbax Singh in lying down position. Sukhdev Singh ran towards the village. Balwant Singh ran after him and fired four shots aimed at Sukhdev Singh from his rifle but none of them, however, hit Sukhdev Singh who was lucky enough to escape unhurt. Rameshwar accompanying Sukhdev Singh ran towards village Laliana and thereby saved himself.

All the three cruel and brutal murders were given out by the author of the First Information Report to be the brainwave of Ajmer Singh, who was said to have master minded them through a conspiracy hatched with his sons, named Jai Singh, Balwant Singh and Saheb Singh and got them committed from his two sons named Balwant Singh and Jai Singh in pursuance of their common intention shared by them both.

On being charged with the commission of offences under sections 120B, 302/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code all the four accused and for offences under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, two accused in Balwant Singh and Jai Singh separately pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment/order dated the 4th Dec., 1987 learned trial court held the charge of conspiracy as not proved and, therefore, acquitted Ajmer Singh and Saheb Singh both arrayed as coaccused, Only two of the identified accused assailants in Balwant Singh and Jai Singh were convicted of the commission of offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 5000/ each for their conviction under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each one of the two accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. For their conviction under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code each one of the two accused was individually awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years, and ordered to pay Rs. 250/ as fine. In default of payment of fine each one of the two accused aforesaid was individually ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment both the convicted accused jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 640DB of 1987 in this Court. Criminal Revision No. 337 of 1968 for enhancement of the sentence awarded to accusedappellants and for the payment of added/enhanced compensation to legal representatives of the three deceased has also been filed on behalf of the complainant party.

We have heard Shri Ganpat Ram, Advocate, with Shri Shish Pal Laler, Advocate for the appellant, Shri Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State assisted by Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate for the complainant revisionpetitioner and have carefully perused the evidence on record.

Eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by Joginder Singh PW12 and Gurcharan Singh PW13 in regard to the occurrence outside the Kotha of Piara Singh culminating in the death of Ram Singh and Gurpal Singh and the narration of events by Sukhdev Singh PW 15 and Rameshwar Dass PW 16 in regard to the happening at the Dol of mustard field situated on the outskirts of Kalol Majra which resulted in the death of Gurbax Singh at the hands of the two convicted accused appellants stands corroborated in all material particulars from the contents of the postmortem reports Exhibit PA, Exhibit PB and Exhibit PC in regard to the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. R.S. Garg PWI on the dead bodies of Ram Singh, Gurpal Singh and Gurbax Singh respectively, report Exhibit POO submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, in regard to the firearms used by the two accusedappellants, the matching of cartridge C11 with .12 bore pistol allegedly used by Jai Singh and of the bullets/bullet parts with the rifle got recovered by Balwant Singh. Disclosures allegedly made by the two accusedappellants individually to the police and discoveries of pistol and rifle effected in pursuance thereof also lend credence to the prosecution assertions in regard to the weapons of offence allegedly used by the accusedappellants while committing the triple murder of the three deceased aforesaid.

Giving themselves out as wholly innocent, accusedappellants asserted in the course of their respective individual and separate statements recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as under :

"Deceased Ram Singh was an influential person. His case is being followed by equally influential people more so when their party has now come into power. He was a close friend of Gurpal Singh who happened to be the President of the District Unit of Lok Dal. We are innocent people. We were nowhere near the place of occurrence and we had no hand in it.

It is a false case. We had relinquished possession of the Panchayat land in time. Of course in our own way we wanted to enforce our rights through the agency of the court which is permissible under the rule of the law but the complainant party did not take kindly to it and have unnecessarily dragged us into this litigation. Self exculpatory assertions made by the accused appellants are of no avail to them because the proof of a strong motive for the commission of the crime attributed to them and the availability on record of the prosecution evidence set out and detailed in the preceding paragraph inculpates them for its actual commission. Furthermore the rifle allegedly used by Balwant Singh is duly licensed in the name of his father Ajmer Singh and the discovery of unlicensed country made .12 bore pistol allegedly used by Jai Singh in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him has not been challenged in the course of crossexamination of Sukhdev Singh PW15. Aforesaid evidence inculpates the accused appellants in the commission of the crimes attributed to them beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt and, therefore, duly proves the case set up against them.

Learned counsel for the appellants very ably argued that the single shot alleged to have been fired by Jai Singh accused from his .12 bore unlicensed pistol with the live cartridge, empty of which is C11 which allegedly hit Gurpal Singh on his left arm above the elbow, having been proved to be rifle bullet injury, the edifice built by the prosecution against Jai Singh accused wholly crumbles like a house of cards and is completely smashed to the ground. According to the learned counsel part assigned to Jai Singh having not been proved, accusedappellant Jai Singh is entitled to acquittal.

The argument is wholly without merit. Assertion, made by the author of the First Information Report Shri Joginder Singh PW12 and Jai Singh accused having fired the pistol shot from his .12 bore unlicensed pistol at the start of the occurrence stands fully proved from the contents of report Exhibit POO, submitted by the Assistant Director (Forensic) of the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, (Karnal) which reads "Contained one 12bore fired cartridge case marked C/1 by me, stated to have been recovered from the spot near the `Kotha'' of Piara Singh. The cartridge case C/2 (of 12bore) has been fired from the country made pistol W/2 and not from any other firearm as every firearm has its own individual characteristic marks". Regarding aim and actual hit of this pistol shot, expecting a photogenic account of it from Joginder Singh PW12 would be little too much; more so when he observed it in horror of the shot being aimed at his uncle Gurpal Singh and that too from quite a sizeable distance. The error of observation and narration of it in the First Information Report in regard to the aim and actual receipt of the injury does not discredit the deposition of Joginder Singh particularly when another part of his evidence in regard to the fire of the shot by Jai Singh from his .12 bore pistol with live cartridge, empty of which is CII, is fully supported from the reports submitted by the Forensic Science Expert; relevant portions of which have been reproduced above. In fact, as it appears from the evidence, the pistol shot aforesaid fired by Jai Singh hit Ram Singh on his left index finger. Forearm injury No. 3 given out in his postmortem examination report Exhibit PA by Dr. R. S. Garg reads: "There was a lacerated wound on the left index finger. There was fracture of the proximal and middle phalynx blackening of the skin and laceration of the soft tissues and skin was sent to the FSL. Injury No. 3 noted in Post Mortem report was also caused by firearm". The skin piece sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory was, however, received completely putrefied and no observation could be made by the laboratory aforesaid in respect of it. Dr. R.S. Garg PW1 having described it as firearm injury, it could only be caused to the deceased from the pistol shot aforesaid and in no other manner. There is thus nothing brought on record to absolve Jai Singh of the role attributed to him by the prosecution in the occurrence. No case for his acquittal on this score is, therefore, made out.

Secondly it was urged that the fatal blows with his .315 rifle are alleged to have been caused by Balwant Singh accused to Ram Singh and Gurbax Singh (now deceased) in standing position while the evidence adduced by the prosecution in regard to the recovery of bullet bullet parts from the earth below the injured parts of the body of the deceased as embodied therein clearly suggest that these injuries were caused by the accused to the deceased (if at all) in lying down position. Therefore, it was asserted that the prosecution evidence is rendered incredible on this ground and should not have been relied upon by the learned trial court to base the conviction of the accused thereon. There is no merit in this argument as well. Injuries sustained by the three deceased at the hands of accused Balwant Singh are admittedly caused to them by him with the licensed rifle of his father; which could be easily available to him and have been described by Dr. R.S. Garg PW1 in the postmortem examination reports Exhibit PA, Exhibit PB and Exhibit PC to be sufficient to cause the death of the three accused in ordinary course of nature. Bullet/bullet parts recovered from the injured parts of the bodies of the three deceased have also been duly married with his rifle aforesaid and are also asserted to have been fired therefrom. Error in the description as to whether the alleged injuries were sustained by the three deceased at the hands of the accused in standing or lying down position, makes no difference in the guilt of the accused in having caused them to the deceased with his rifle aforesaid. The culpability remains unchanged whether these were inflicted by the accused on the deceased in standing or lying down position.

Thirdly it was argued that licensed .315 rifle of Ajmer Singh allegedly used by his son Balwant Singh could easily be kept in the house after the occurrence and made over to the police when asked for by them from the accused. The entire version in regard to its concealment by the accused after the occurrence, disclosure and discovery is thus a concoction inspiring little confidence. It was just a question of police collecting it from the house of Ajmer Singh and planting it upon accused Balwant Singh. This argument again is wholly without merit. Under the terms of the licence granted to Ajmer Singh, Balwant Singh could neither use of rifle nor carry it along; while going on the heroic errand towards the Kotha of Piara Singh. Having used it for the commission of the heinous crime of triple murder accused Balwant Singh presumably thought it safe to conceal it after the occurrence and therefore, got it recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement after apprehension.

Lastly it was urged that the First Information Report was inquest oriented. Occurrence was around 2.00 P.M. on 2nd January, 1986. The First Information Report was got recorded by Joginder Singh PW 12 in Police Station Sadar Ambala at 4.00 P.M. an the same day. Even the special report bears an endorsement from the Illaqa Magistrate of its receipt by him it his residence at 5.45 P.M. on 2nd January, 1986 itself. PW30 ASI Piara Lal states that the inquest proceedings in regard to the dead body of Gurbax Singh were commenced by him at 7.00 P.M. Similarly Bhopal Singh PW3 also asserts that he completed inquest proceedings and sent the dead body to mortuary around 9.30 P.M on 2nd January, 1986. In this view of the matter the assertion of the First Information Report alleged to have been recorded at 4.00 P.M. being inquest oriented is rendered wholly unfounded; more so when special report of the occurrence had been delivered at the residence of the Illaqa Magistrate at 5.45 P.M. earlier in the day.

A bare reading of the relevant column 10 in three inquest reports Exhibit PA/3, Exhibit PB/3 and Exhibit PC/3 clearly brings out that the injuries and marks of violence narrated therein to have been detected on the dead bodies of three deceased are much more than what is stated in the First Information Report. In case the First Information Report had been inquest oriented then the injuries described in the relevant column of the inquest report would have been strictly in harmony with the injuries and marks of violence set out in the First Information Report. The variance between the two documents in this regard also negatives. The contention raised on behalf of the two accusedappellants by their learned counsel.

Adverting now to the conviction and sentence part of the impugned judgment of the learned trial court it must be said that as per assertions obtaining in the postmortem reports Exhibit PA of Ram Singh, Exhibit PB of Gurpal Singh and Exhibit PC of Gurbax Singh all the three deceased, rifle injuries allegedly caused by Balwant Singh on the person of everyone of the three deceased accused aforesaid resulted in their deaths. Accusedappellant Balwant Singh is, therefore, guilty of the commission of murder of everyone of the three deceased in Ram Singh, Gurpal Singh and Gurbax Singh and is, therefore, convicted of the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code thrice over separately for the commission of everyone of the three individual murders aforesaid. For everyone of the three individual convictions aforesaid accused named Balwant Singh shall undergo separately imprisonment for life and pay Rs. 5000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine, imposed separately for his conviction on everyone of the three murders aforesaid, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years each.

AccusedAppellant Jai Singh opened the attack immediately on arrival at the place of occurrence;. wherein Balwant Singh along with the wheatish complexion khaki clad man was already waiting for him. Accusedappellant Jai Singh also came duly armed with a .12 bore unlicensed pistol loaded with a live cartridge, empty of which is Exhibit C11 and is, therefore, to saddle the responsibility for the three murders aforesaid on the basis of his common intention of committing them; shared by him with coaccused Balwant Singh and is thus convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code thrice over separately for the commission of everyone of the three individual murders of Ram Singh, Gurpal Singh and Gurbax Singh the three deceased. For everyone of the three individual convictions aforesaid coaccused Jai Singh shall undergo separately imprisonment for life and, pay Rs. 3000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine imposed separately for convictions on everyone of the three murders aforesaid, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year each.

For attempt on the life of Sukhdev Singh, the individual conviction of both the coaccused under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code obtaining in the impugned order of the learned trial court and the sentence awarded to each one of them for it therein are both maintained. Substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellants on all the counts shall, however, run concurrently.

Criminal Appeal filed by the two convicted accused as also the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant party shall both stand disposed of accordingly.