Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 462DB Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab was heard by us along with Crl. Revision No. 734 of 1995 Baldev Singh v. Mohinder Singh and another. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length on 24.4.1997. We had dismissed the appeal filed by accused Mohinder Singh, while in Criminal Revision preferred by Baldev Singh, we had directed the fine to be converted to compensation payable to the petitioner in criminal revision. This short order was pronounced by us for the reasons to be stated later on.

Consequently, we proceed to give reasons for our decision aforesaid.

Amrik Singh, a young boy of 20 years resident of village Kamalu, was going to the house of Mukhtiar Singh, his uncle, to obtain spray pump for spraying insecticide on 27.1.1994 at about 7.00 PM when he was brutally murdered by Mohinder Singh accused. This brutal murder was witnessed by Baldev Singh, father of the deceased and his brother Harbans Singh. Baldev Singh (PW2) made the statement which was recorded by Hardevinder Singh ASI (PW4) of Police State Maur, which was nearly 7 miles away from the place of occurrence. Recording of the statement was concluded at 9.30 P.M. and special report was sent to the judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhatinda which is approximately 40 Kms away from the police station aforestated at about 2 A.M. on 27/28.1.1994 According to PW.2 when Amarik Singh was going to his uncle''s house and reached near the house of Darshan Singh son of Bachittar Singh, Mohinder Singh had come armed with a gandasa from under a Tahli tree where probably he was hiding himself and after raising lalkara that he would teach the deceased a lesson for prohibiting him from playing taperecorder at highpitch, the accused gave gandasa blows from sharp side on the head and another gandasa blow hitting near right ear and right eye of deceased Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh fell down on the ground. Baldev Singh raised hue and cry and raula, "don''t kill, don''t kill," but the accused continued to give more gandasa blows on the deceased even after the deceased had fallen on the ground. During this period, Harbans Singh (PW.3) brother of Baldev Singh happened to come from other side towards the place of occurrence. He also raised an alarm, upon which the accused managed to escape and took away the gandasa with him. All these persons went near the deceased who had breathed his last. Harbans Singh and wife of Baldev Singh remained near the dead body of Amrik Singh, while Baldev Singh proceeded to inform the police. The police met him at bus stand Rajgarh Kube where his statement was recorded and the police further proceeded to investigate the matter. The Investigating Officer (PW.4) recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected blood stained earth for which recovery memo. Ex.PE was prepared. The accused while in custody made disclosure statement vide Ex.PG and got blood stained gandasa (Ex.P1), the weapon of offence, recovered from the Toori room in the residential house of the accused. The reports of the chemical examiner and Serologist were exhibited as PK, PL, PN and PX respectively. The accused was challaned and sent to face the trial before the trial Court for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court while finding the said accused Mohinder Singh guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, resulting in the filing of the present appeal.

Baldev Singh, father of the deceased has preferred criminal revision No. 734 of 1995 praying for payment of compensation on account of death of his son in the occurrence.

The main argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that there is no motive proved by the prosecution for commission of the crime, secondly the learned counsel attempted to create some doubts in the story put forward by the prosecution on the ground that no taperecorder was taken into custody. The alleged vulgar cassette were also not taken into possession by the police. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution; both the witnesses examined are near and dear ones of the deceased who have falsely implicated the accused.

In order to appreciate these contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we consider it appropriate to refer to the evidence on record. PW.2 Baldev singh and PW.3 Harbans Singh both are eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have stood the test of crossexamination without erring or faulting in the manner which would in any way effect the case of the prosecution. These witnesses appear to be giving credible version and there is no reason for us to disbelieve these two witnesses. In fact PW.3 stated in his examinationinchief that he was going to the house of his brother Baldev Singh to inform him that the water had started flowing in the canal. As per turn fixed, they were to get water on next morning. According to him when he reached near the house of Jarnail Singh, he noticed that his brother Amrik Singh was lying on the ground and Mohinder Singh accused was giving him injuries on his neck, head and chest. He noticed this occurrence from the distance of 15 karams. According to this witness, he raised the alarm and he saw his brother Baldev Singh raising alarm and in the meanwhile Mohinder Singh fled away. If this witness had been falsely introduced by the prosecution, then he would have stated the entire incident like PW.2, father of the deceased. The genuineness in the statements of eye witnesses is apparent on record and mere fact that they happened to be relation of the deceased or near and dear ones, would not, by itself, be a ground for discarding the version given by these two witnesses. PW.2 had seen the occurrence from a short distance when he was unloading his tractor trolley. The reasons given for their presence appear to us to be very natural as they are agriculturists living in the village.

The prosecution has further been able to establish by cogent medical evidence that the injuries, as stated by these two witnesses, were actually inflicted by sharp edged weapon upon the deceased. PW.1 Raj Kumar Garg who had prepared postmortem report Ex.PA of the dead body of the deceased on 28.1.1994 had noticed as many as 11 injuries on the body of the deceased and had opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 8 individually caused by sharp edged weapon and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All injuries were antemortem in nature. The doctor has specifically deposed after seeing gandasa Ex.P1 that all the injuries on the body of the deceased could be caused by that weapon.

The entire evidence, ocular and documentary aforesaid, has provided due link to the version given by eye witnesses supported by expert evidence which points out to the guilt of the accused with definite certainty. There can be no doubt as to the genuineness of the occurrence and we find no reason to doubt the genuinity of two eye witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure made simplicter denial of the entire occurrence and the evidence put to him by the Court during the statement. He did not explain his conduct nor did even he aver that his relations were cordial with the deceased family. The absence of any explanation by the accused seen in the background of the statements of two eye witnesses that the accused used to play vulgar cassettes at highpitch which was objected to by the deceased at many occasions and even other members of the family, cannot be ignored. It has come in evidence that complaints were made to the respectables of the village but still the accused did not mend his ways and he was nursing this grudge more particularly against the deceased. It is an accepted principle of law that the prosecution may show motive for commission of crime. Motive behind the crime is mere relevant factor and even absence of motive can also be a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. Lack of proof of motive does not, by itself, weaken or affect other circumstances which have been mentioned in proving the guilt of the accused. With the development of law on this subject and consistent view taken by even Hon''ble Apex Court, it cannot be said that if the prosecution fails to prove motive for commission of the offence, it must result in benefit of doubt to the accused. Motive remains relevant factor but not an unavoidable circumstance of the case of the prosecution. There might be cases where motive is known to the accused alone and none else. On the other hand, there may be cases where the motive appears to be trivial, but once read with entire evidence on record, it definitely indicates towards guilt of the accused; then such triviality of motive would not affect the case of the prosecution.

It has been held in the case of Mauli and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 that where direct evidence regarding assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved, while sometimes the motive is shrouded in mystery and is difficult to locate. If the eye witnesses are creditworthy and consistent to the case of the prosecution taken in its entirety, the motive even may become irrelevant. In the case of Jagdish v. Madhya Pradesh, 1981 SCC (Crl.) 676, Hon''ble Apex Court clearly held that if the offence is otherwise proved, the mere fact that the motive as shown was trivial one, the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on that ground.

In a recent case of Kuriakose and another v. State of Kerala, JT 1994(1) SC 268 Hon''ble Supreme Court while commenting on the significance of motive in murderous attack on the deceased observed as under :

"If the murderous assault by the accused is established by clear and clinching evidence by the eyewitnesses, it will not be necessary to investigate the motive behind such commission of offence."

In the present case, eye witness account given by PW.2 and PW.3, duly supported by Investigating Officer and expert evidence of doctor, reports of the chemical examiner and serologist, clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was murderous assault by the accused on the deceased. Same motive has been stated by these witnesses and triviality of motive would not effect the case of the prosecution much less to say that it would have the affect of entitling the accused to any benefit of doubt. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant merits rejection.

Another point raised is with regard to delay in effecting the recovery of weapon from the accused. We have examined the record. To our mind, delay is directly attributable to the fact that the accused himself was not available or was absconding, as he was arrested on 11.2.1994 after nearly 14 days of the occurrence and on the same day the recovery is stated to have been effected on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused. It has also come in evidence of the PWs that the accused was loafer type of person and was not doing any work anywhere. Thus, the said delay is totally inconsequential in the present case.

Now we come to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 734 of 1995 where Baldev Singh, father of the deceased had prayed for award of adequate compensation while disposing of the present appeal. The plea of compensation was neither raised by the complainant before the trial Court nor by the State. No evidence of any kind was placed before the trial Court in this regard. Even before us, no basic facts have been given which would constitute valid basis entitling the petitioner for award of compensation. The petition lacks basic facts and is without merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others, JT 1988(3) SC 711 : 1988(2) RCR (Crl.) 394. It was held by Hon''ble Supreme Court that power to award compensation is not ancillary power but is in addition to the power of sentence which vests in the Court under the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lack of material and even basic averments is a ground on which we are not inclined to grant compensation to the petitioner in this petition. However, as already directed, the amount of fine of Rs. 2,000/ shall be converted to compensation payable to the petitioner in this petition.

For the reasons aforestated, we had passed the order indicated in the opening part of this judgment. JUDGMENTed accordingly.