Kuldeep Singh vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J.

The facts of the case which have led to the filing of this appeal are as under :

On 28th May, 1990, Arjan SinghPW3 was present alongwith Lakhwinder Singh since deceased in the shop of Baljeet SinghPW4, situated in Krishna Basti, Samana, as they alongwith others were planning to attend the bhog ceremony of Sh. Hardayal Singh Rajla, ExMLA, who had been murdered. While a conversation was going on, Kuldeep Singh the appellant and his coaccused Devinder Singh came to the shop on a motor cycle. They called out Lakhwinder Singh, who came out of the shop, whereupon Devinder Singh took out a knife from his dub and gave a blow on the left side of his chest, whereas, the appellant gave a knife blow on his left arm pit, as a result of which, he fell down. The assailants thereafter, ran away from the place of occurrence on their motor cycle with their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Arjan SinghPW3, Baljeet Singh PW4 and one Sandeep Pal Singh who was not examined as a witness. After arranging a Maruti van, the injured was taken to the Civil Hospital, Samana, where he was declared dead by the attending doctor. The motive as stated by Arjan SinghPW3 was that the accused and the complainant party had been members of rival groups while studying in college and on 18th May, 1990, in the course of hearing in Courts at Patiala, there had been some quarrel between the deceased and Devinder Singh. Dr. Kusam MohinderooPW2 sent a ruqa to the police station, Samana about the arrival of the dead body in the hospital, thereupon Harbhajan Singh ASIPW9 took up the investigation of the case, reached the Civil Hospital and recorded statement Ex.PC of Arjan Singh at 12.20 p.m. The Special Report was also conveyed to the Ilaqa Magistrate in Samana itself at 4.10 p.m. through constable Nand Lal. While the trial was yet pending, Devinder Singh accused died a natural death and the case thereafter, proceeded against the present appellant only. The trial Court after considering the evidence against the appellant, came to the conclusion that the case against him stood proved and, accordingly, convicted him for an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed at the instance of Kuldeep Singh appellant alone.

The evidence that was tendered before the trial Court consisted of the medical evidence, various formal witnesses, as also the two eyewitnesses i.e. Arjan Singh PW3 and Baljeet SinghPW4. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the plea taken was that he had been involved falsely in this case on account of strained relations between the two groups of students and that the liquor vendor of Punjab territory had some grudge against the appellant on account of a liquor vend that he was running in an adjoining village in the State of Haryana and that the rival party had utilised the murder of Lakhwinder Singh to involve him as an accused. He also produced some evidence in support of his case.

Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has first and foremost argued that the First Information Report in the present case had been delayed inordinately and that though the time had been utilised to concoct the story against the appellant and his coaccused since deceased. While reiterating the facts of the case, Mr. Ghai has pointed out that the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 10.30 or 10.35 a.m. in front of the shop of Baljeet SinghPW4 and the injured was removed to the Civil Hospital, Samana immediately, where he was declared dead. Reliance has been placed on the statement of Harbhajan Singh ASIPW9 to contend that though the information about the murder had been received by him at about 11 a.m. the First Information Report was recorded belatedly. It has further been contended that though, it had come in evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves that the distance between Police Station, Samana and the office of the Ilaqa Magistrate could be covered in 10 to 15 minutes, but the Special Report was conveyed to that officer at 4.10 p.m. and there was no explanation for this delay whatsoever. In further support of his argument Mr. Ghai has urged that as per the evidence, inquest report had been completed at 1.30 p.m. in the hospital and the postmortem had been conducted at about 4.00 p.m. He then went on to say that the First Information Report had, in fact, been recorded shortly before the postmortem at about 4.00 p.m. and not at about 12.30 p.m. as sought to be made out.

We have considered this argument of Mr. Ghai and find no merit in it. It has come in the statement of Dr. Kusam MohinderooPW2 that ruqa Ex.PB/1 was despatched from Civil Hospital, Samana to the Police Station at about 11.05 a.m. and it reached the police station at 11.15 a.m. wherein it was entered vide Daily Diary Report 12, but as there was no Investigating Officer present in the police station, it was marked to Incharge, Police Post, City Samana, for further action, and it was in all probability handed over to A.S.I. Harbhajan Singh (PW9) at about 11.30 a.m. ASI Harbhajan SinghPW9, thereafter, reached the Civil Hospital, Samana, where he recorded ruqa Ex.PC the statement of Arjan Singh PW3 and the endorsement Ex.PC/1 shows that it was concluded at 12.20 p.m. and the formal First Information Report was recorded 10 minutes later. It is undoubtedly true that the Special Report did reach the Ilaqa Magistrate at 4.10 p.m., but in the light of the facts as given above, this delay, by itself, could not detract the genuineness of the prosecution case. It is to be noted that in the ruqa Ex.PB/1 which was sent to the police by the doctor at 11.05 a.m., the name of the deceased and that of Arjan Singh, the first informer have been clearly mentioned. And in the First Information Report Ex.PC/2 which followed soon thereafter, full details with regard to the incident had been clearly spelt out.

Mr. Ghai has next argued that Arjan Singh PW3 while recording F.I.R. had only mentioned about two injuries that had been caused by the two accused, whereas as a matter of fact, there were seven injuries on the person of the deceased including contusions and abrasions and as ocular evidence did not conform to the medical evidence, not only the presence of the witness was to be doubted, but on account of the omission, the prosecution story was even otherwise liable to be disbelieved.

We have considered this argument of the learned counsel as well and find no merit in it. For facility of reference, the injuries on the person of the deceased are reproduced below :

Stab wound 1.8 cm x 1 cm x lung deep on the front of left side of chest in its upper onethird, 2 cm from the midline.

Stab wound 1.8 x 1 cm x lung deep on the lateral side of left side of chest 10 cm below left axilla.

Diffused swelling on the lateral side of left side of neck.

Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the left iliac region.

Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the back of left elbow.

Abrasion 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the front of right knee.

Abrasion 0.8 cm x 0.8 cm on the front of left knee.

It is true that in the First Information Report, only the first two injuries find mention, whereas the others which included two contusions and two abrasions, were not noticed. We are, however, of the view that this fact, by itself, would not cast a doubt on the prosecution case because the contusions and abrasions are so small in dimension that they could have been suffered even in the course of fall on a hard surface and this was the positive statement of Dr. Satish AroraPW1 who had conducted the postmortem examination. It has also come in the statement of Baljeet SinghPW4 that the place where Lakhwinder Singh fell down on receiving the injuries was partly pucca and partly kacha and there were loose bricks lying on the spot as well. It is, therefore, to our mind probable that these injuries were received when the deceased fell down at the spot. There could yet be another reason for these injuries. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was carried to the hospital in a Maruti van and it is equally possible that these minor injuries could be caused to him when he was put into it and hurried away to the hospital.

Mr. Ghai has then argued that the two eyewitnesses Arjan SinghPW3 and Baljeet SinghPW4 had no reason to be present at spot and in any case, their antecedents being shady, no reliance could be placed on their testimony. It has been contended that Arjan Singh had been called from Patiala after discovery of the body, whereas Baljeet Singh was a regular student in a college in Samana and as such, his presence at the spot at 10.30 a.m. was unlikely.

We have considered this argument as well and find no merit in it. In the ruqa Ex.PB/1 which was despatched at 11.05 a.m. from the hospital, the name of Arjan Singh is clearly mentioned as being the first informer, whereas the incident having taken place outside the shop of Baljeet Singh, would make his presence at the spot absolutely natural. It has come in the statement of Baljeet Singh that he used to look after his shop in the absence of his brother Kuldeep Singh and the very fact that at the relevant time, the classes in the college might have been going on, would not mean that Baljeet Singh would be attending the classes under all circumstances. It has come in the evidence that Arjan Singh was the owner of a van and as has been stated in the evidence, he and his friends, were meeting at the shop of Baljeet Singh in all likelihood in order to proceed to the bhog ceremony of Hardyal Singh Rajla. The presence of these two witnesses, therefore, at the spot, is most likely.

It is equally true that the two accused as also Arjan SinghPW3 had been involved in a number of violent incidents earlier either against each other or against other persons and that they were part of rival groups in the area. To our mind, this factor strengthens the case of the prosecution with regard to the motive and probabalises the quarrel that had taken place few days earlier at the Courts in Patiala between Devinder Singh, coaccused (since dead) and Lakhwinder Singh.

Mr. Ghai has also argued that in the Daily Diary Reports Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B, there was no mention about the names of any witness, weapon of offence or the place of incident and in this connection, he has placed reliance on Lala Ram and another v. The State, 1989 Crl.L.J. 572 to contend that as this omission was contrary to the Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police RulesVol.3, the presence of the eyewitnesses was highly unlikely.

We have considered this argument and find that most of the particulars were given in the First Information Report lodged with promptitude. Moreover, Rule 24.1 provides that while the First Information Report must contain full particulars with regard to the registration of a case, it further requires that only a reference to such report is required to be entered in the Daily Diary Report. We are, therefore, of the view that the omission of the Police Officer to enter detailed particulars in the manner suggested by Mr. Ghai would not have the effect of weakening the case of the prosecution. The judgment cited by Mr. Ghai does not advance his case whatsoever. In that case the omission to give full particulars of the place of occurrence was held to be fatal in the light of the background that the other evidence against the accused was untrustworthy. The case before us is on a different set of facts.

Mr. Ghai has finally argued that the defence version as given by Sh. Angrej SinghDW3 was required to be believed in the background of the admitted animosity between the two parties. He has urged that Angrej Singh, who had attested the inquest report and had identified the dead body had appeared as DW3 and stated that the murder of Lakhwinder Singh was blind one and had been committed much earlier and that the witness was not aware of the assailants. He further explained that though the signatures on the inquest report were his, yet he had only signed on a blank paper, which was subsequently filled in by the police officers. We, however, find from a reading of statement of Angrej SinghPW3 that no reliance can be placed on his testimony. He admitted that he alongwith Devinder Singh accused since deceased and the appellant Kuldeep Singh was being prosecuted for causing injuries to Sarup Singh, father of Baljeet SinghPW4. He has conceded that he was being prosecuted in five or six criminal cases in addition. He even went to the extent of disowning the contents of the inquest report and while admitting his signatures on it, gave an explanation which was totally unbelievable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that his testimony cannot be relied upon. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.