Mangal Singh alias Mangi vs State of Punjab

K.S. Tiwana, J.

Jaspal Singh deceased son of Tarlok Singh P.W.3, a resident of Amritsar, worked as electrician. He normally used to go to his work at 800 A.M. and return at about 500 P.M. On 6th of May, 1983 Tarlok Singh P.W. 3, who is employed as a constable in Amritsar police and was posted at Police Station Ram Bagh came to his house in Kot Baba Dip Singh locality at about 6. p.m. Uptil that time Jaspal Singh had not returned home. Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 got worried on the failure of Jaspal Singh to return up till that time. Tarlok Singh then set out to look for his son Jaspal Singh. He went to the house of his relative Gurnam Singh P.W 4 in Ajit Nagar Colony and enquired from him. Gurnam Singh P W. 4 stated that he had not seen Jaspal Singh on that day. Both of them then started search for Jaspal Singh. When they were near the Vishkarma works of Gobind Nagar locality of Amritsar, they saw Mangal Singh alias Mangi accused and Balkar Singh alias Kala Mental quarrelling with Jaspal Singh deceased. They were abusing and grappling with each other. Tarlok Singh shouted them to stop the quarrel. They saw Jaspal Singh fall on the ground. Mangal Singh accused gave kirpan blows on the thighs of Jaspal Singh while Balkar Singh alias Kala Mental gave dagger blows in the flanks, neck and back of Jaspal Singh. Narinder Singh P.W. also reached at the spot and witnessed the occurrence, The accused then leaving Jaspal Singh there ran away with their weapons.

On the motorcycle of Narinder Singh Jaspal Singh deceased was carried to Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, by Gurnam Singh P.W. Jaspal Singh was admitted to the Surgicalward of that hospital at 8 p.m. by Dr. Balbir Singh P.W. 1.

Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 went to Police Post Sultanwind and made statement at 8:05 p.m. on 6th May, 1983 to Baldev Singh Head Constable. This statement was sent to Police Station Saddar Amritsar, where formal first information report on its basis was recorded.

Jaspal Singh died at 910 p.m. on 6th of May, 1983 in the hospital. On receipt of information Baldev Singh H.C. P.W. 6 went there. In the meantime Mukhtiar Chand Inspector, S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Amritsar. had also reached there. Mukhitiar Chand Inspector prepared inquest report on the dead body and sent it for postmortem examination.

Dr. N.P. Aggarwal performed autopsy on 7th of May, 1983 at 4 p.m. on the deadbody of Jaspal Singh and found the following injuries :

An incised stab wound longitudinal 4 cm X 2 cm on the front of the left side of the chest 9 cm below, the nipple at 6 O''clock position. On dissection, after piercing the chest wall at and entered through the 6th left intercostal space then piercing the pleura and lower lobe of the left lung in its lower part through and through, then piercing the peritoneum, punctured the jejunum at one place measuring 2 X 1 cm. There was free fluid blood present about 600 cc in the left chest cavity and 300 cc in the abdominal cavity.

Incised stab wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm. oblique on the upper outer aspect of the right thigh 5 cm below the right iliac crest,

Incised stab wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm. longitudinal on the anterolateral aspect of the fight thigh muscle deep in the upper one third.

Incised stab wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm transverse on the frontof the left thigh on the upper onethird muscle deep.

Incised stab wound 3/4 cm X 1/2 cm skin deep on the front and inner aspect of the left thigh 3 cm medial to injury No. 4.

An abrasion 1.5 cm X 3/4 cm on the front of the right, kneejoint.

An incised scratch wound 15 cm X 1/3 cm. on the back of the chest in lower onethird transverse.

Incised wound 2 cm X 1/2 cm on the body in the interscapular region muscle deep."

Injuries No. 1 to 5 were caused by sharpedged pointed weapon while injuries No. 7 and 8 were the result or sharpedged weapon. Injury No. 6 was the result of blunt weapon. The stomach of the deceased contained about 60 cc of semidigested food. In the opinion of the doctor the death of Jaspal Singh occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to the left lung and gut. These ante mortem injuries were sufficient to cause the death of Jaspal Singh in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between injuries and death was about two hours and postmortem examination bad been conducted after about 19 hours of the death.

Balkar Singh alias Kala Mental was killed in the police encounter during the pendency of the investigation and the charge against him has thus abated. Mangal Singh alias Mangi was arrested and sent up for trial.

At the trial Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 and Gurnam Singh PW 4 appearing as eyewitnesses narrated the circumstances, which have been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. Narinder Singh was left as won over by the accused. The rest of the witnesses examined at the trial were formal in nature. Shri P.K. Goel Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Amritsar P.W. 12 was examined to prove that he received the special report at 10 P.M. on 6th of May, 1983.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied the case against him Kuldip Singh Bedi, SubEditor, Jag Bani, Jullundur appearing as D.W. 1 testified to that publication of the news item about the occurrence of this case Sardool Singh D.W. 2 Moharrir Head Constable stated that he did nit take charge of Roznamcha for the period from 2841983 to 1251983.

The learned Sessions Judge Amritsar accepted the case of the prosecution in its entirety and convicted Mangal Singh accused under section 301/34. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a One of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Feeling dissatisfied with the order of conviction, the accused has come to this court in appeal.

Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 was employed as a constable in Police Station Ram Bagh, Amritsar. Being a constable on duty he was normally not expected at his house at 6 P.M. He has not given any reason to stay away from the place of duty to go to his house. Jaspal Singh deceased was working as electrician as stated by Tarlok Singh P.W. 3. The deceased normally returned to his house at 5 P.M. On that day when be did not return to the house up till 6. P. M, Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 and his wife were anxious about him. 6 P.M. is not late in the month of May to cause anxiety to the parents especially when father happens to be a police man. There was no occasion for Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 to be worried for the failure of the deceased to be back at his house at 6 P.M. Anxious to locate his son, Tarlok Singh P.W.3 started his search. He did not know to which place or in which direction Jaspal Singh bad gone. We do not find if there was any justification for that pointless search by Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 and Gurnam Singh P.W. 4. Both of them per chance stumbled against the deceased and the accused when they were grappling and abusing each other. It was only, when these two eyewitnesses appeared at the scene that both accused caused injuries to Jaspal Singh deceased. This is such a fact which does not inspite confidence. Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 is the father and Gurnam Singh P.W. 4 is his relative. The case is supported by both these eyewitnesses, who are related to the deceased. Since their presence is too chance at the place of Occurrence, they were required to be corroborated by some independent source. Narinder Singh the only independent person, whose motorcycle was used for carrying the deceased to the hospital, was left as won over by the accused. The prosecution evidence lacks corroboration to the testimony of these eyewitnesses.

Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 and Gurnam Singh P.W. 4 admitted that they did not know Mangal Singh accused earlier. In spite of that we find the name of Mangal Singh alias Mangi accused mentioned in the first information report. The statement of Gurnam Singh P.W. 4 under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also contains the name of Mangal Singh. It is not known how they came to know the name of the accused. The only other witness who could know the accused was Narinder Singh and he has not been examined. The accused was known to these witnesses. The witnesses were not asked to identify the accused in any test identification parade. Their testimony at the trial loses all significance when they stated that the accused in the dock was the person, who had caused injuries to Jaspal Singh deceased,

Dr. Balbir Singh P.W. 1. who admitted Jaspal Singh to the Hospital at 1. P.M. stated that the injured bad been brought to the hospital Tarlok Singh of Police Station Ram Bagh and Narinder Singh Jaspal Singh was admitted at 8 P.M. Tarlok Singh denied to have gone with his son to the hospital. The statement of Dr. Balbir Singh cannot be doubted when he stated that it was Tarlok Singh of Police Station Ram Bagh, who is no one else than the father of the deceased, who got Jaspal Singh deceased admitted there. It is also natural for a father to take his seriously injured son to the hospital himself. It cannot be believed that Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 left his son Jaspal Singh, who was in a precarious condition and who did not survive more than two hours after the injuries, to the care of Gurnam Singh P.W. 4 and Narinder Singh for carrying to hospital. It has to be accepted that Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 was in the hospital at 8 P.M. When this is the situation he could not be at the Police Post Sultanwind to make the first information report at 8.05 P.M. on 8th May, 1983. The time of making of the first information report has been falsely mentioned as 805 P.M. on 6th May, 1983 only to show that the statement of Tarlok Singh at the Police Post Sultanwind was posthaste. In the light of the discussion in the previous paragraph that Tarlok Singh did not know the name of Mangal Singh alias Mangi, but still he mentioned it in the first information, report shows that the first information report was created some time later. The tampering of the time and date on which special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate also, lends support to this argument. It is discernible to the nacked eye that the date initially recorded under the initials of the learned Magistrate was 7th May, 1983. The digit 7 was overwritten to read as `6''. Similarly the time `1'' A.M. has been made to reads 10 P.M. This does not do any credit to the Magistrate or the staff working under him. Once a document is, in court it cannot be tampered with.

From the above discussed circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that neither Tarlok Singh P.W. 3 nor Gurnam Singh P.W. 4 had witnessed the occurrence. Admittedly on their own showing they were not acquainted with the name of the accused, but still it has been mentioned in their police statements. The first information report was recorded after consultations and not at the time it is stated by the prosecution. These grounds are such which make the case of the prosecution against the accused extremely doubtful. We, therefore, accept the appeal set aside the order of conviction and acquit the appellant.