Malook Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Malook Singh through present appeal filed by him has challenged the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default whereof, he was further ordered to undergo R.I. for one year. Fine if recovered was ordered to be paid to Darbara Singh father of the deceased. Facts leading to the murder of Budh Singh son of Darbara Singh need necessary mention.

On 8th of April 1991, Swaran Singh PW3, an eyewitness of the occurrence made a statement before Ajaib Singh A.S.I. of Police Post Killian Wali, wherein he stated that they were four brothers and one sister. Younger to him was Budh Singh aged about 25 years, whereas the remaining were younger to him. On the day of occurrence at about 11.00 A.M. he alongwith his brother Budh Singh was coming to the colony after taking fodder from the field. His brother Budh Singh was going a little ahead of him with a bundle of fodder on his head. When his brother Budh Singh reached the place two Killas behind their colony on the passage leading from the colony to the fields, Malook Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of Jhalwali colony Kandu Khera armed with a Gandasa emerged from the wheat fields of Iqbal Singh. He raised a lalkara and said, "Budh be ready, you will not be allowed to escape unscathed today." Immediately after reaching there, Malook Singh gave a Gandasa blow from its sharp side on the right ankle. His brother tried to run away after throwing the bundle of fodder and after covering a little distance he fell down due to receipt of Gandasa blow. While his brother Budh Singh was lying on the ground he (Malook Singh) gave 5/6 Gandasa blows from its sharp side on his neck. He raised an alarm, ''Na Maaro, Na Maaro'' (Don''t kill, Don''t kill). In the meantime his brother Darbara Singh son of Gurdit Singh and his brother Resham Singh son of Darbara Singh rushed to the spot from the colony. They too saw the whole occurrence. When his father, his brother Resham Singh and he himself stepped forward, then Malook Singh ran away from the spot with the Gandasa. Malook had severed the neck of his brother Budh Singh by giving Gandasa blows. Budh Singh died on the spot. The cause of grudge was that Malook Singh suspected that Budh Singh had illicit relation with his sister Kaki. On account of it Budh Singh and Malook Singh had quarrelled with each other about five/six months earlier. The matter was brought to an end in the colony itself and was not reported to the police. For this grudge Malook Singh had committed the murder of his brother Budh Singh by giving Gandasa blow in the broad day light. He was going to police post to lodge report that ASI Ajaib Singh met him. He had come to lodge the report leaving his father Darbara Singh to guard the dead body.

Prosecution with a view to bring home the offence against the appellant examined PW1 Dr. Lakhbir Singh Sandhu, Ajit Sharma Draftsman PW2, Swaran Singh PW3 and Darbara Singh PW4. Constable Azad Singh was examined as PW5 and ASI Ajaib Singh appeared as PW6. Dr. Lakhbir Singh Sandhu stated that he was posted at Civil Hospital, Malout on 8th of April, 1991 and on that day at 4.45 P.M. he had performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Budh Singh and had found following injuries on his dead body:

An incised wound 4x2 cm skin deep on the back of right leg, 6 cm above ankle joint. Clotted blood was present.

An incised wound 10x1/2 cm skin deep on the back of chest crossing the mid line in upper part back of chest. Clotted blood was present.

An incised wound 7x1 cm on the back of head bone deep. Clotted blood present. On dissection, no fracture and no haematoma found.

An incised wound 4x1/2 cm on the top of head in mid line. Wound was transverse in direction. Clotted blood present. On dissection, no fracture and haematoma found.

The head was separated from trunk through upper part of neck by an incised wound passing through skin, underlying muscle, junction of upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd of second cervical vertebrae through the upper part of laryngo pharynax cutting all the vessels and spinal cord just below the lower jaw.

The cut end of the vertebrae of the severed part corresponded with the cut end of the cervical vertebrae of the neck and so was the part of the lyrango pharynax and the skin margins. Colour of the severed part and the trunk was the same.

The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 5 as a result of sharp weapon (heavy). This injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and were the result of sharpedged weapon. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem about 24 hours, Ajit Sharma prepared site plan Ex. PD on 16th of April, 1991 at the pointing out of Darbara Singh and Resham Singh. Swaran Singh deposed in tune with the First Information Report lodged by him reference whereof has been made above. He as also Darbara Singh have supported the prosecution version. Constable Azadpal Singh stated that on 8th of April, 1991 he was posted at Police Post Killianwali and he and ASI Ajaib Singh were present in connection with Nakabandi at Tinkoni Abohar road, Killianwali. Swaran Singh came to ASI Ajaib Singh and told about the occurrence. Thereafter, Ajaib Singh ASI, he himself and others left for the place of occurrence. At the spot dead body of Budh Singh was lying. At the spot Resham Singh and Darbara Singh were present near the dead body. Swaran Singh had also accompanied them. From the spot, bloodstained earth was lifted which was taken into possession. ASI Ajaib Singh lifted a pair of shoes lying near the dead body which were also taken into possession. Near the dead body was lying a bundle of fodder which too was taken into possession. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination through Constable Ram Lal. Constable Ram Lal had produced before ASI Ajaib Singh the bloodstained clothes worn by the deceased and removed by the doctor and these were taken into possession. ASI Ajaib Singh gave details of the investigation done by him in this case.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Malook Singh denied the occurrence and only stated that he was innocent and he was brought from the house of Iqbal Singh and was falsely implicated in the case. He examined Iqbal Singh son of Balbir Singh in his defence as DW 1 who stated that the police had come to his house and had arrested Malook Singh from his house and that he had not produced the accused before the police. In crossexamination he admitted that Malook Singh had been his Seeri. He, however, denied the suggestion that it was on that account that he was supporting him.

Mr. J.S. Bhatti, the learned counsel representing the appellant herein, in support of the appeal preferred by him contends that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in this case as also that Swaran Singh and Darbara Singh alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence were not present at the scene of occurence and it was a case of blind murder and the appellant had been involved falsely only on suspicion, due to enmity with the complainant Swaran Singh, Mr. Mehtab Singh learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab endeavoured us to sustain the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

We have heard Mr. J.S. Bhatti, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Mehtab Singh learned Deputy Advocate General and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. We, however, find no substance in either of the contentions of the defence Counsel noted above. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 8th of April, 1991 at 11.00 A.M. in Jhal Wali Colony, village KanduKhera which is 12 miles away from police Station Lambi and FIR came to be recorded at 3.30 P.M. on the same very day. On the same very day the Special Report reached the Magistrate at Gidderbaha at 5.00 P.M. There was a death of youngman in the house of the complainant and the way and manner in which Budh Singh was done to death must have left the eyewitnesses totally shocked. It may be recalled that eyewitnesses had given injuries in such a manner that the neck of Budh Singh had been severed from the body. If in this state of shock the witnesses took time, which happens to be only an hour or so in proceeding to lodge the report to the police station, no fault can be found on that count. That apart, a copy of the FIR reached the Magistrate at Gidderbaha at 5.00 p.m. i.e. within less than two hours from the time FIR was recorded. We find absolutely no delay in lodging the FIR in this case. On the contrary, it appears to us that the FIR has been lodged spontaneously and promptly, thus, ruling out the element of consultations and confabulations. Nothing at all has been pointed out to us but for with preference to the statements of eyewitnesses i.e. Swaran Singh PW3 and Darbara Singh PW4 some discrepancies in their statements only on nonvital issues to show that it was a case of blind murder and in fact Swaran Singh PW3 and Darbara Singh PW4 had not witnessed the occurrence. Their statements have been scanned through very carefully by us. It is true that they are close relations of the deceased but that fact at the most would put the Court on guard and therefore, a cautious approach has to be made by the Court before their statements are accepted. Applying that test as well, we find that these two eyewitnesses have given consistent account of the occurrence leading to the death of Budh Singh. No infirmity has at all been found in their depositions made before the Court. Their statement inspire confidence and are worthy of credence. Their statements are also supported by the medical evidence as the injuries said to have been caused by the appellant to Budh Singh were caused in tune with their deposition and in the opinion of the doctor they were all sharpedged injuries.

No other point has been argued by the learned defence counsel.

Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same.