Jasmel Singh vs State of Punjab

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 16.11.1993, passed by Shri H.R. Nohria, Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which Jasmel Singh accusedappellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution story, as unfolded by Harnek Singh son of Amrik Singh, in his statement made before Shri Jaswant Rai, A.S.I. is that he was a resident of village Hamidi and did cultivation. Ranjit Kaur alias Rani daughter of his brotherinlaw (wife''s brother) Krishan Singh alias Ghudu son of Lal Singh, Jat, resident of village Alipur Khalsa, Police Station Sherpur had been residing with him for the last two years. He had got solemnized her marriage about 7 months back in village Hamidi with Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha son of Nazar Singh Jat, resident of village Khadoor, who was residing with his maternal uncle Jasmail Singh son of Arjan Singh Jat, resident of village Wajid Ke Khurd. He had adopted Sukhwinder Singh. He had also transferred his land in favour of Sukhwinder Singh, as he had no son. On 25.9.1992, in the evening, Ranjit Kaur came to his house at village Hamidi and told, "My fatherinlaw Jasmail Singh keeps evil eye upon me." He should be asked to behave. He alongwith his brother Bahadur Singh went there and made Jasmail Singh understand the situation and behave himself. Then they left Ranjit Kaur in herinlaws'' house. Yesterday, i.e. 26.9.1992, in the evening again he and Baljit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, resident of village Hamidi went to village Wajid Ke Khurd in order to enquire about Ranjit Kaur. It was about 8.00 P.M. Jasmail Singh, aforesaid was present in his verandah armed with a double barrel gun and abusing Ranjit Kaur. He was saying, "Today I will teach a lesson for informing the matter to your Phupher (father''s sister''s husband) Harnek Singh that he had an evil eye upon her." Why, she had told this matter to her Phupher (father''s sister''s husband) immediately saying so, within our sight, he fired two shots at Ranjit Kaur with his licensed double barrel gun. She fell down immediately on receipt of fire shots in front of the door of the baithak in the verandah. After falling on the ground she died. He and Baljit Singh had seen the entire occurrence with their own eyes. The light was burning in the verandah. We both raised an alarm. On hearing our raula Jasmail Singh together with his gun ran away towards the fields. The cause of grudge was that Jasmail Singh had an evil eye upon their daughter. Due to odd hours and unavoidable circumstances and also out of fear, we did not come to lodge an report. After leaving Baljit Singh near the dead body he was going to lodge a report with the police when ASI Jaswant Rai met him on the Bus Stand of village Wajid Ke Kalan. Harnek Singh then got recorded his statement Ex.PE about the occurrence before the said ASI who forwarded it with his endorsement thereon to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PE/2 was recorded. The statement made by Harnek Singh was read over to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness. ASI Jaswant Rai and S.I. Shamsher Singh SHO, investigated the case. The accused was arrested and challanged after necessary investigation. He was charged under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and after being tried he was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

Prosecution has produced as many as five witnesses to prove their case.

Bahadur Singh, Prem Chand Sharma, Arms Clerk, Shiv Pal Sharma and Sant Singh HC PWs were given up as unnecessary and Thakar Singh PW was given up as won over by the accused. Affidavit Ex.PD of Harbant Singh constable, affidavit Ex.PG of Bharpur Singh constable, affidavit Ex.PH of Hardev Singh MHC and reports Ex.PP of the Chemical Examiner and PQ of the Forensic Science Laboratory were also tendered into evidence by the prosecution in support of their case.

Dr. Ashok Kumar Bansal (PW1) had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Kaur on 27.9.92 at 11.30 A.M. He found the following injuries on the dead body :

Lacerated wound with blackened and inverted margins on lateral side of left upper arm in its lower part 4 cm from the left elbow joint. Humerus was fractured. Muscles and soft tissues were badly lacerated and the track was continuous and communicated with injury No. 2.

Lacerated wound with averted margine 10.5. cm X 7 cm on inner side of left upper arm in its lower part 11 cm below the axilla, 4 cm above the left elbow joint. Injuries No. 1 and 2 communicated with each other.

Lacerated wound 8 cm x 3 cm on the left side of face in its lower part and upper part of neck on left side 2.5. cm below the lobule of left ear, 4.5 cm from the angle of the mount, 3.5 cm from the midline of the neck on its anterior side and 8 cm from the midline of the neck on its posterior side. Margins were blackened and inverted. Muscles and soft tissues were badly lacerated. Left carotid artry ruptured and left jugular vein external and internal both ruptured, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra were raptured. Spinal cord underneath was badly lacerated. 3 card boards and 18 small pellets were recovered from this wound.

A lacerated wound 3.5. cm x 3 cm on lateral side of chest on left side, 9 cm below the axilla 14 cm from the midline of the back and 10 cm above the illiac crest. Margins were inverted and blackened. Multiple small blackened lacerated wounds were present around this injury. They were of the size of 0.3'' x 1 cm in an area of 12 cm x 9 cm. 9th rib was fractured. On dissection of this injury left pleura, left lung, spleen, left kidney, descending colong, Priton of small intestine and lumber vertebra were found ruptured with corresponding spinal nerve injuries. The track terminated at wound No. 5.

A lacerated wound 5.5. cm x 3.5 cm was present near the mid line of the back 21 cms on the right side and 1.5 cm on the left side of midlines. Margins were averted. Underlying lumber vertebra 2nd and 3rd were fractured with nerve injury as described. Abdominal aorta overlying was ruptured. Wound was 13 cms from the fold of the buttocks and 13.5 cm from wound No. 4. Wound No. 4 and 5 communicated with each other through a common track.

Ninth rib of the left side was fractured. Pleura was torn. Left lung was ruptured on its lower part at many places. Pleural cavity contained blood. 20 pellets were recovered from the wound and lung. Right lung was healthy. Left lung was ruptured in its lower part. Left side of heart was empty and the right side of the heart was full of blood. Abdominal aorta and left carotid artery was ruptured. Pertonium was badly torn and was having clotted blood and haemorrhagic spots at many places. It was full of blood. Stomach contained about 600 ml semi digested food. There were multiple pellets injuries on small intestines with haemorrhagic spots. 10 pellets were recovered from small intestines. Descending colon had multiple injuries and 6 pellets were recovered therefrom. Spleen was badly ruptured at multiple sites and 5 pellets were recovered from the spleen. Left side of the kidney was ruptured. 5 pellets were recovered. Bladder contained about 150 ml of normal coloured urine. Rigor morits was present in all the four limbs. The cause of death, according to the doctor, was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of firearm injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem examination was 6 to 36 hours. Ex.PA is the carbon copy of the post mortem report and Ex.PA/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the location of the injuries. Injury No. 4 was individually sufficient to cause death this case. All the injuries could be the result of two gun shots from .12 bore gun and blackening could be due to gun powder.

Harnek Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW2 and he has given the version about the occurrence rather on the same line as it was stated in the First Information Report. He has also proved his statement Ex.PE which was made the basis of the formal FIR in this case and he has deposed at the trial that he accompanied the police to the place of occurrence. The accused was not found in the house even when he had come with the police to the spot.

PW 3 Baljit Singh had corroborated the version of PW2 Harnek Singh at the trial.

PW4 ASI Jaswant Rai and PW5 S.I. Shamsher Singh are the investigating officers in this case. According to Jaswant Rai, after recording the statement Ex.PE of Harnek Singh PW in village Bajidke on 27.9.92 and after making his endorsement Ex.PE/1 he forwarded it to the policestation where formal FIR Ex.PE/2 was recorded on the basis of that statement. Special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 2.00 P.M. on 27.9.92. According to this witness he had accompanied Harnek Singh to the spot and found the dead body of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani deceased lying in the verandah of the house of the accused which is located in the field of village Bajidke Khurd. He took into possession blood stained earth from near the dead body in a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PF attested by Baljit Singh and Bahadur Singh PWs. Rough site plan Ex.PJ of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes was prepared and then he prepared the inquest report Ex.PC and despatched the dead body along with inquest report Ex.PC for post mortem examination. He searched for the accused in the locality but he was not found present. He took into possession two sealed parcels which were handed over to him by Sant Singh Head Constable. He also took into possession a parcel vide memo Ex.PK attested by the doctor. Ex.PI/A is the parcel containing pellets and card wad. On 6.10.1992 Thakar Singh produced the accused before Shamsher Singh SI and he was arrested and interrogated by Shamsher Singh. The accused disclosed having kept concealed a .12 bore double barrel gun under logs of wood in the Turi Walakotha of his house, and he signed his statement Ex.PL to that effect and got recovered gun Ex.P2 of .12 bore from the disclosed place. It was found having two empties in it. The empties are Exs. P.3 and P.4. The gun and the empties were taken into possession after being sealed separately vide memo Ex.PM.

Shamsher Singh S.I. (PW6) has corroborated the version of Jaswant Rai (PW4) about the accused having been produced before him by Thakar Singh and also about his interrogation. He deposed that licence Ex.P1 of the gun was also produced by the accused and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PN. Ex.PO is the site plan of the place of recovery.

Prosecution has also relied upon the affidavits Ex.PD and Ex.DH of formal witnesses along with the reports Ex.PP and Ex.PF. As already stated above, all other prosecution witnesses were given up as unnecessary.

The report Ex.PP shows that the earth taken into possession from the spot was found stained with blood. Report Ex.PQ of Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that two empties P.3 and P.4, which were taken into possession from the spot, were found to have been fired from the double barrel gun Ex.P.2.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that he was maternal uncle of Sukhwinder Singh who was residing with him and he was treating Sukhwinder Singh as his son as he had no son of his own and had transferred the land also in his name. He had also admitted that Ranjit Kaur alias Raji was wife''s brother''s daughter of Harnek Singh and was married to Sukhwinder Singh about 7 months before her death. He had denied that Harnek Singh had performed this marriage. According to him, Harnek Singh was only a go between in this marriage. He also admitted that the gun Ex.P.2 belonged to him. However, he had denied all other circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. He has given his version as follows :

"I am innocent. I was arrested by the police on 27.9.92 from my house and my gun was taken into possession therefrom on the same day after I had returned from the house of my inlaws in village Birdhno, District Patiala where I had gone to bring my wife and daughter, whom I had brought. Actually, about a fortnight before this occurrence, Sukhwinder Singh had beaten Rani allegedly for having illicit relations with Harnek Singh PW as she had stayed in the house of Harnek Singh for 34 days after the marriage when the wife of Harnek Singh was away from the house. I came to know of this fact after the occurrence. Harnek Singh wanted me to transfer six killas of land in the name of Ranjit Kaur. Since I had refused to do so, he has falsely implicated me in this case."

In defence, the accused has examined Atma Singh constable as DW1 and he has proved copies of the D.D.Rs of Police Station Sadar, Barnala Ex.DA/1 and Ex.DB for the dates 26/27.9.92 and 27/28.9.92. Similarly, he has proved copies of the D.D.R. entries Ex.DC and Ex.DD of P.P. Hamidi, Dated 26/27.9.92 and 27/28.9.92. According to him the date 26/27.9.1992 means 8 a.m. on 26.9.1992 to 8 a.m. on 27.9.1992 and so on.

The accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence this appeal.

The leaned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant mainly on the following grounds :

(i) that Harnek Singh and Baljit Singh being chancewitnesses, their evidence should not be relied upon for holding that the appellant had murdered Ranjit Kaur alias Rani.

(ii) that there is unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the occurrence had taken place at 8.00 p.m. on 26.9.1992 but the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at 8.10 a.m. when the distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence was merely 12 kms and a police post was also available at village Hamidipur at a distance of about 2 kms from the place of occurrence. Then the learned counsel submits that the special report also reaches the Illaqa Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala at 2.00 p.m. on 27.9.1992.

(iii) that the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence, as according to the learned counsel, it has been shown in the rough site plan that the distance between Mark ''A'' where the dead body of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani was lying and Mark ''C'', where Jasmel Singh accused fired shot at Ranjit Kaur with his .12 bore gun, is 20 feet. According to the doctor (PW1), blackening was found on injuries No. 3 and 4 and cardboards were also recovered from these wounds. All this, according to the learned counsel, shows that the victim was fired at from a very close range, i.e. from 5 to 6 feet.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the presence of eyewitness is natural. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. and sending the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate is fully explained. There is no contradiction between the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, according to the State counsel. The State counsel then submits that the presence of deadbody in the house of the accused has not been explained by the accused.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State counsel, we do not find any merit in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

At the outset, it may be stated that the dead body of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani was found in the house of the accused. This fact has not been challenged. It has come in the evidence of eyewitness Harnek Singh (PW2) that when he along with Baljit Singh, went to the house of the accused at 800 p.m. and entered the door, they saw the accused carrying his doublebarrel gun in his hands standing in the verandah and abusing Ranjit Kaur alias Rani. Electric light was on in the verandah. He was telling Rani that she would be taught a lesson for complaining against him (accused). Then he fired two shots with his gun at Rani hitting her on the left side of her head and left shoulder and she fell down and died there and then. Thereafter, the accused ran away with his gun.

P.W.3 Baljit Singh has also corroborated the oral testimony of P.W.2 Harnek Singh.

A.S.I. Jaswant Singh (P.W.4) when reached the place of occurrence, found the deadbody of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani deceased laying in the verandah of the house of the accused. The bloodstained earth was taken into possession from the place of occurrence in a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PF attested by Baljit Singh and Bahadur Singh. He prepared the rough site plan Ex.PJ of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes and prepared the Inquest Report Ex.PC. Human blood was found by the Chemical Examiner on the bloodstained earth which was taken into possession, vide his report Ex.PP. The report Ex.PQ of the Forensic Science Laboratory reveals that two empties which were found in the gun Ex.P.2 recovered from the accused at the time of recovery, were found to have been fired from the two barrels of the gun Ex.P.2. The presence of the deadbody in the house of the accused has not even been disputed by him. It is, thus, proved from the evidence on the record that the deceased Ranjit Kaur alias Rani was murdered in the house of the accused and the deadbody was found in his house. The accused has not come out with any plausible explanation about the presence of the deadbody in his house. He has not brought any evidence on record which could point that somebodyelse had murdered Ranjit Kaur alias Rani.

Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has not given any plausible explanation about the presence of the deadbody in his house. He has simply stated in his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. that he was innocent, was arrested by the police on 27.9.1992 from his house and his gun was taken into possession therefrom on the same day after he had returned from the house of his inlaws in village Birdhno District Patiala, where he had gone to bring his wife and daughter. At a belated stage, the accused has, in his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C., stated that after the occurrence, he came to know of the fact that actually about a fortnight before this occurrence, Sukhwinder Singh had beaten Rani allegedly for having illicit relations with Harnek Singh P.W. as she had stayed in the house of Harnek Singh for 34 days after the marriage when the wife of Harnek Singh was away from the house. He further stated that Harnek Singh wanted him to transfer six killas of land in the name of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani. And since he had refused to do so, he had falsely implicated him in this case. This belated version of the accused is hardly acceptable. However, even in his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C., he does not say even a word as to how the death of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani took place in his house and under what circumstances, she was murdered. This is a very strong circumstance which goes to show that it was noneelse than the accused who had murdered Ranjit Kaur alias Rani.

There is then the evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.2 Harnek Singh and P.W.3 Baljit Singh who had seen the accused fired at Ranjit Kaur alias Rani from his DBBL gun. The presence of eyewitnesses is natural. P.W.2 Harnek Singh being very near relation of the deceased who always took her as his daughter and who had married her daughter Ranjit Kaur alias Rani with Sukhwinder Singh who admittedly, was considered as a son by the accused. This relationship of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani with Harnek Singh has rather been admitted by the accused though he has stated in his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C., that P.W. Harnek Singh was only a go between for the performance of the marriage of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani with his son Sukhwinder Singh. Village Hamidi of Harnek Singh (PW2) is only 2 kms from the house of the accused. The deceased Ranjit Kaur alias Rani had complained to Harnek Singh that the accused had an evil eye on her though she had not attributed any other misconduct of a serious nature to the accused. It has come in the evidence of P.W.2 Harnek Singh that he accompanied by his brother Bahadur Singh and Rani (now deceased), had gone to the house of the accused on an earlier day and had told the accused about the complaint of Ranjit Kaur alias Rani and had advised him to treat her as his daughter. The accused had begged pardon and then they left Ranjit Kaur alias Rani in the house of herinlaws, i.e. in the house of the accused. In these circumstances, the visit of Harnek Singh (PW2) and his companion Baljit Singh at her daughter''s inlaws'' house to know about as to whether the matter had settled or not on the next day of occurrence, is not unnatural in any way. It is always an anxiety with the parents to know about the wellbeing of their children and in this case, when the house of the accused where Ranjit Kaur alias Rani stayed with herinlaws, was not at a far off place, as has been stated above, it was only 2 kms away. The presence of eyewitnesses, thus, at the time of occurrence, is quite natural. Further, it was natural for both the eyewitnesses after the occurrence to stay in the house of the deceased at night till the matter could be reported to the police.

The delay in lodging the First Information Report is also explained by the prosecution. It has been deposed at the trial by the eyewitnesses that they could not move out of the house during the night due to law and order situation in those days of terrorism in Punjab and also due to the fear of the accused who had gone out of the house armed with a gun. This explanation is plausible particularly in view of the fact that the occurrence had taken place at night. In the morning, the report was lodged with the police at about 7.00 a.m. and the formal F.I.R. was recorded at 8.10 a.m. at Police Station which is 13 kms away from the place of occurrence. The name of the accused has been mentioned in the F.I.R. The deadbody of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala which was at a distance of about 13 kms; and the postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased was performed by the doctor at 11.30 a.m. All the papers along with the Inquest Report were sent to the doctor with the deadbody. The Inquest Report was initialled by the doctor before postmortem examination. This factual position corroborates the prosecution version that the F.I.R. was actually lodged at the time stated. In these circumstances, if the Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.00 p.m., it did not make any dent in the prosecution story. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in sending the Special Report to the Illaqa Magistrate is thus, very much explained by the prosecution.

The ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In the rough site plan, the distance of Mark ''A'' to ''C'' has been shown as 20 feet. ''A'' is the mark where the deadbody was found and ''C'' is the mark where the accused was standing at the time of firing. It has come in the evidence of the doctor that the victim was perhaps fired at within a range of 6 feet as according to him blackening was found on the injuries No. 3 and 4 and cardboard was also recovered from those wounds. The possibility thus, could not be ruled out that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the deceased at the time of firing could be 5 to 7 ft. Merely because the distance between marks ''A'' and ''C'' and 20 feet, does not belie prosecution version particularly, when the eyewitness account is available to us. It depends upon the manner in which the accused fired at the deceased. The length of the barrel of the gun with it but is usually more than 3 feet and the posture of the body of the lady who was fired at, and the posture of the body of the accused who fired at the lady, and when the victim fell down after the fire, is only a guesswork and may be the actual distance between the muzzle of the gun and the victim could be between 5 to 6 ft. Moreover, eye witnesses have not stated that the distance between the victim and the barrel of the gun was 20 feet.

In these circumstances, we do not find any contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account of the eyewitnesses. The medical evidence rather corroborates the prosecution version that the accused had fired at the deceased and due to that gun shot which hit Ranjit Kaur alias Rani, she died at the spot. The prosecution version thus, finds full corroboration from the medical evidence as well as the sworn testimony of the eyewitnesses Harnek Singh (PW2) and Baljit Singh (PW3).

In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment/order dated 16.11.1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, which is hereby confirmed and the appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed.