Mota Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

R.K. Nehru, J.

Appellants Mota Singh, Beant Singh and Tara Singh were found guilty of the charge under Sections 307/34 IPC by the learned Additional Sections Judge, Ferozepur and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants, were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month each.

Feeling aggrieved against their above conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 251/SB of 1986.

Appellant Mota Singh Beant Singh were also found guilty of the charge punishable under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act for possession of firearm, the weapon of offence, in the aforesaid case of murderous assault. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

Against the conviction and sentence on the charge under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, appellant Mota Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 252/SB of 1986 while against his conviction and sentence on the charge under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, appellant Beant Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 253/SB of 1986. All these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment as they rest upon almost the same evidence.

The above mentioned Criminal Appeals were earlier disposed of by Harbans Singh Rai, J vide order dt. April 3, 1991 in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 8890 of 1992 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court remitted the matter to this Court for a fresh consideration after giving the appellants an opportunity to engage counsel. The appeals were disposed of accordingly. This is how, these criminal appeals are before me.

The prosecution case, as it has emerged from the evidence during the trial, can be summoned up thus :

Some time prior to the occurrence in question, Jagir Singh PW4 had purchased some manure from one Sahib Singh and that manure was kept by him in the house of uncle of Mota Singh appellant. However, that manure was taken away from there by Pritam Singh, father of Mota Singh appellant and on that account a dispute had arisen between Jagir Singh PW4 and Pritam Singh, father of Mota Singh. However, the matter was patched up with the intervention of the respectables of the village. The accused was still nursing a grudge against Jagir Singh, PW4 for having taken away the manure. On February 3, 1985 at about 4 p.m. Jagir Singh alongwith his brother Jagtar Singh PW5 and Banta Singh (not examined by the prosecution) was hoeing wheat crop in his field. Appellant Mota Singh armed with pistol Ex. P1 32 bore, Beant Singh armed with country made. 303 bore pistol and Tara Singh armed with a Kirpan came there in a Jeep and went to the place where Jagir Singh was present.On reaching there, Mota Singh appellant raised a lalkara that they would teach a lesson to Jagir Singh for taking away the manure from his father Pritam Singh. Thereupon, Mota Singh and Beant Singh appellants took out their pistol from the dubs. On seeing them behaving in that fashion, Jagir Singh PW4 tried to run away from the spot. However, these two appellants fired at Jagir Singh on the back of his right shoulder. Jagir Singh PW4 continued running towards the Dhani of Shingara Singh and two appellants fired 4/5 shots at him. When Jagir Singh PW4 tried to run enter into Dhani of Shingara Singh appellant Tara Singh inflicted a Kirpan blow on the back of his right shoulder. Jagir Singh PW4 and his brother Jagtar Singh raised an alarm which attracted some women folk. After causing injuries to jagir Singh PW4, the appellants ran away with their respective weapons. Behal Singh who at the relevant time of occurrence was present in his Dhani situated near the place of occurrence came to the spot, brought a tractor trolley and removed Jagir Singh PW4 to Civil Hospital, Abohor. There he was medicolegally examined by Dr. G.R. Garg, PW1 who vide medicolegal report, copy Ex. PB, found the following two simple injuries on his person, one of them was stated to have been caused by a fire arm, whereas the second by a sharpedged weapon, within the duration of six hours :

1) Three lacerated wound punctured and with inverted edges, bleeding profusely muscle deep in an area of 9x15 cm with

(a) 1 x 1 cm on the right upper arm lateral and upper one third,

(b0 .5 x .25 cm on the right posterior exillarly fold.

(c) 1 x 5 cm below injury No. 1 (b0 1.5 cm. The corresponding holes in shirt were present.

2) An incised wound 3 x 5 cm on the right scapular area. It was muscle deep and bleeding profusely. The corresponding holes (cut) in the shirt were present. Xray was advised.

After medical examination of Jagir Singh, Dr. Garg sent his medico legal report alongwith shirt Ex. P1 which he was then wearing, to Police Station City, Abohor, which, in turn, sent the same to Police Station Khuian Sarwar within whose jurisdiction the occurrence is stated to have taken place. ASI Harbans Lal thereupon went to Civil Hospital, Abohar and after getting the certificate of Dr. Garg that jagir Singh was fit to make statement he recorded his statement Ex. PG on that very day at 11.15 p.m. and sent it under his endorsement Ex. PG/1 to Police Station, Khuian Sarwar where the case was registered under formal FIR Ex. PG/2 by ASI Gurdeep Singh on the night intervening 3/421985.

Dr. S.I.S. Sandhu PW3 on February 4, 1985 radiologically examined the injuries on the person of Jagir Singh. Vide his report Ex. PF, he found radio opeque shadow resembling pellet under injury No. 1 in the upper right arm of Jagir Singh.

ASI Harbans lal visited the spot, prepared a visual site plan Ex. PJ and arrested the three accused on February 13, 1985. He interrogated Beant Singh and Mota Singh appellants on February 16, 1985.

Beant Singh appellant on interrogation came out with his disclosure statement leading to the recovery of country made pistol 303 bore Ex. P1 (exhibited in case registered under Section 25 of Arms Act under FIR No. 32 dated February 16, 1985). Similarly, on interrogation, Mota Singh appellant came out with his disclosure statement leading to the of country made .32 bore pistol Ex. P1 (exhibited under Section 25 of Arms Act in a case registered separately against him under FIR No. 31 dated February 16, 1985.

After completion of the requisite formalities and investigation, all the appellants were sent up for trial for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC while appellants Beant Singh and Mota Singh were also put to trial for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act under FIR Nos. 32 and 31 dated February 16, 1985 respectively.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants pleaded total denial and false implication. They, however, did not lead any evidence in support of their defence.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found that offence under Section 307/34 IPC had been made out against all the three appellants. They were accordingly sentenced as mentioned above, which necessitated the filing of the above mentioned Criminal Appeal No. 251/SB of 1986. Mota Singh and Beant Singh appellants were also held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act against which they have filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 252 and 253SB of 1986 respectively.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the State and with their help scanned the evidence and other material on record.

The sole submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the eyewitnesses namely, Jagir Singh PW4 and Jagtar Singh PW5 are real brothers and as such, they do not deserve any credence. It is no doubt true that both of them are real brothers. In a way, they can even be said to be interested in the success of the prosecution case. However, simply because they are close relations are interested in the success of the case, that cannot be a ground to hold their testimony either as infirm or unreliable. Where the witnesses are close relations, it only puts the Court on guard to scan their evidence with greater care and caution on the touchstone of crossexamination in order to find out whether they are witnesses of credence or not.

When tested with the aid of aforesaid rule of caution, no infirmity is found in the testimony of Jagir Singh PW4 and Jagtar Singh PW5. There is no material from which it can be inferred even remotely that they are false witnesses or had implicated the appellants falsely. So far as Jagir Singh PW4 is concerned, his presence at the spot stands established from the certificate of injuries found by the doctor on his person. These injuries cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have been manufactured in as much as injury No. 1 has been proved to have been caused by a firearm whereas injury No. 2 is result of a sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 2 is attributed to Tara Singh appellant against whom there is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant party had any motive to implicate him falsely. Both, Jagir Singh PW4 and Jagtar Singh PW5 had been subjected to lengthy and searching cross examination on by the defence but no dent could be created in their testimony. Learned trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of these witnesses as truthful.

So far as the conviction of the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act is concerned, the evidence of the prosecution is very much consistent and no dent or infirmity could be pointed out by their learned counsel during the course of arguments to hold that the appellants have implicated falsely for the recovery of the firearms.

In the result, I do not find any infirmity with the judgment of conviction of the three appellants under Section 307/34 IPC and I accordingly confirm the same. Similarly, as far as the conviction of appellants Mota Singh and Beant Singh for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is concerned, finding no merit,I confirm the judgment of conviction covered by Criminal Appeal Nos. 252/SB of 1986 and Criminal Appeal No. 253/SB of 1986.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the appellants already suffered much and that leniency be shown to them in the matter of sentence.

I have given by conscious consideration to the above submission. From the record, I find :

i) that the injuries suffered by Jagir Singh PW4 were simple;

ii) that the appellants were arrested in February, 1985 whereafter they have faced protracted trial upto 11th April, 1986 when they were convicted and sentenced;

iii) that thereafter, they have filed and prosecuted these appeals;

iv) that appellants Mota Singh and Beant Singh had remained behind the bars for twenty one months each, while appellant Tara Singh had remained behind the bars for five months;

v) that they have already suffered much in terms of harassment and expenditure;

vi) that there is nothing on record that they had any previous conviction to their credit; and

vii) that they remained on bail during the trial and did not misuse the concession of bail. They were taken into custody again on their conviction but were admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated May 1, 1986.

In the light of above considerations, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served, if they are again sent behind the bars where there is every likelihood of their mixing up with the hardened criminals lodged therein and in that eventuality possibility of their becoming hardened criminals cannot be ruled out. I, therefore, find it a fit case where the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the trial Court should be reduced to already undergone and the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court on the appellants is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/ to Rs. 2,000/ each. I order accordingly. The fine should be deposited by the appellants in the trial Court within three months. On the failure of the appellants to deposit the fine, as per the above direction of this Court, the impugned order of conviction of the trial Court shall be deemed to have been confirmed and in that eventuality, the appeals would stand dismissed in toto.

With above modifications, the abovesaid three Criminal Appeals stand decided accordingly. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to PW Jagir Singh injured by the Trial Court, after giving him necessary notice.