Nachhattar Singh vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

Sarwan Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of village Fatehgarh Sabhrah died some time at sunset on 11.1.1995. It was a Lohri day Autopsy on the dead body of Sarwan Singh was conducted by Dr. J.S. Gujral (PW1) on 12.1.1985 at 4 p.m. Injures on its were described on the dead body under 18 heads One of the injuries was an incised would 1 cms/2cm muscle deep on the front of left leg, lower third, below injury No. 3; 3 contusions under 3 heads; 11 contusions under 8 heads; 2 lacerated wounds under 2 heads; multiple small abrasions on the front of right knee under one head; multiple small abrasions on outer side and back of left elbow, under another head and multiple small abrasions on the back of right hand under another head were found. The doctor gave the cause of death as due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of all the injuries collectively which were found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were, of course, antemortem. Probable duration between the injuries and death was found to be within 6 hours and between death and post mortem within 24 hours. Police papers sent included inquest Ex.PB and inquest report Ex.PC. These were received by the doctor at 3 p.m. on 12.1.1985. According to the opinion of the doctor, the incised wound could be caused with a blade of Kassia Ex.P1, hitting from its corner P2 and Dang Ex.PE, Kassia and Sela if used dangwise. According to the opinion of the doctor, multiple abrasions could be caused by dragging. In crossexamination, the doctor clarified that except injury No. 2 which was on the front of right leg with underneath bones fractured, the other injuries may not have caused death, although, on the other hand, there was a remote possibility. There are 2 eyewitnesses to the occurrence. One is Puran Singh (PW2) who is uncle of Sarwan Singh (deceased) and Pargat Singh (PW3) who is son of Puran Singh (PW2). According to the eyewitnesses account, Sarwan Singh and Pargat Singh had gone to the fields for getting illicit liquor and when they were coming back, they met Puran Singh (PW2) who was also going towards river Sutlej for the same purpose. Puran Singh (PW2) was told that the liquor was not available and all the three returned towards the village at about 6.30 p.m. From the side of the field of Mula Singh, the present appellants, armed with a Sela and Kassia respectively; Jagir Singh and Resham Singh armed with Dangs met them. Jassa Singh appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 1,300/ from Sarwan Singh on account of advance money given by Jassa Singh to Sarwan Singh in the beginning of the agricultural year. In reply, Sarwan Singh told that part of money had already been paid and the remaining amount shall be paid in instalments as he was a poor man. At this, Jassa Singh appellant gave a blow with his Kassia on the right leg of Sarwan Singh who fell down. Nachhatar Singh appellant gave below with Sela dangwise, hitting on the right leg of Sarwan Singh who was then lying on the ground. Thereafter both the appellants and their coaccused caused injuries to Sarwan Singh with their respective weapons. All the four assailants also proclaimed that they shall see how Sarwan Singh dared not to pay the money. The accused also threatened Puran Singh and Pargat Singh that they too shall be dealt with in the same way if they intervened. Out of this fear, both of them remained aside. After injuries were inflicted, both the appellants catching hold of Sarwan Singh from his arms and their coaccused Resham Singh catching hold of him from the hair, all the three, thus, dragged Sarwan Singh to the fields, for throwing him near the husk of Toria of Tara Singh. Jagir Singh coaccused of the appellants intimated the prosecution witnesses to run away otherwise they would be killed. Both the prosecution witnesses left the place on account of fear. After reaching the village, they narrated the occurrence to Balbir Singh, brother of Puran Singh PW, Milkha Singh Lambardar, Sulakhan Singh Panch and Balbir Singh Sarpanch. Milkha Singh and Sulakhan Singh asked them to lodge a report to the Police. At about 11 p.m., Puran Singh (PW2), along with his brother Balbir Singh and nephew Balkar Singh reached the spot and found Sarwan Singh lying dead. In the morning of 12.1.1985, Puran Singh (PW2), accompanied by his brother Balbir Singh, left for the Police Station. The Police met them at Bangaliwala bridge where Puran Singh (PW2) made his statement Ex.PD which was signed by him in token of its correctness. The statement with an endorsement was sent to the police station for the registration of a case. Thereafter Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh (PW6) who had recorded statement Ex.P.D., prepared inquest report Ex.PC and the same was attested by Puran Singh (PW2).

After the arrest, the appellants, Jagir Singh their coaccused got recovered Sela Ex.P2, Kasia Ex.P1 and Dang Ex.P3 from the specified places in their disclosure statements. The same were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PM, PN and PO respectively. Reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist Ex.PQ and PR respectively were obtained, according to which, human bloodstains were found on the articles, i.e. earth, Kassia, Sela and Dang.

The motive for the crime is said to be the amount of Rs. 1,300/ due from Sarwan Singh to Jassa Singh on account of advance of Seer payment for the agricultural year and the same was due form Sarwan Singh.

It may be noted that both the appellants are brothers and Resham Singh their coaccused (since acquitted) is the son of their maternal uncle and Jagir Singh coaccused (since acquitted) is said to be party man of the appellants.

After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Illaqa Magistrate, who, after inquiry, committed the accused for trial before the Court of Sessions. After going thorough the papers submitted by the Police, the Sessions Court framed a charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants and their coaccused denied the charge and pleaded to be innocent and thus, trial was claimed.

During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. J.S. Gujral, PW2 Puran Singh, PW3 Pargat Singh, PW4 Wariam Singh, PW5 Avtar Singh, PW6 ASI Gurdial Singh and PW7 SI Harbhajan Singh and the prosecution tendered affidavits of Constable Avtar Singh, Constable Thakur Singh, HC Gurcharan Singh, Mohinder Singh and Constable Baldev Singh as PWs 8 10, 11 and 12 respectively, as their testimony was of a formal nature. Since the learned Counsel for the defence did not want to crossexamine any of them, the same were admitted into evidence. Reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist Ex.PQ and PR were also tendered into evidence. The remaining prosecution witnesses were given up as unnecessary.

The appellants and their coaccused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. So far the amount of Rs. 1,300/, being due from Sarwan Singh (deceased) to Jassa Singh is concerned, it was also denied by Jassa Singh. Balbir Singh D.W. was examined in defence and according to his statement, village Fatehgarh Sabhre is at a distance of 11/2 miles from his village Barra Sabhra and his village is across the river from Fatehgarh Sabhra. This witness came to the thrashing floor in his fields at about 5/5.30 a.m. on 12.1.1985 and found Sarwan Singh lying dead. He informed about the same to Puran Singh PW. Thereafter PW Puran Singh and others reached the spot and later on, went to Police Station. The Police, according to him, reached the spot at about 7.30 a.m. Suggestions put to him were denied by this witness.

After hearing arguments, the Sessions Court found that Jagir Singh and Resham Singh had no motive to commit the crime and they were given the benefit of doubt and ultimately acquitted of the charge. Injuries attributed to them were held to be possible from Dangwise blows with Kassia and Sela, the arms held by to the appellants. The offence committed was held be only under Section 304 Part 1/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ each or in default in payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months.

The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentences.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that, as a matter of fact, the dead body of Sarwan Singh was found in the fields. On getting information, family members of Sarwan Singh informed the Police and as a result of that, ASI Gurdial Singh visited the spot before long statement Ex.PD by PW2 Puran Singh was recorded. It is further argued that it was a blind murder and the names of the appellants their coaccused were mentioned only on suspicion. The delay in lodging the report is also put forth for disbelieving the prosecution case.

The learned State Counsel has, no doubt, urged that, there is no flaw in the statements of PW2 Puran Singh and PW3 Pargat Singh who, although are related to the deceased, will not falsely name the appellants and their coaccused as the culprits. It is also argued that Jassa Singh had definitely a motive, because of a wordy quarrel between him and Sarwan Singh and it was natural for Nachhatar Singh, Jagir Singh and Resham Singh to join him in the crime. Statement Ex.DB was recorded at 2.30 a.m. and ultimately, after the First Information Report was registered, it was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 9.30 a.m. on 2.1.1985 at his residence, as it was a holiday. On these facts, it is argued that there was practically no delay, the distance between the place of occurrence and the place where Ex.PD was recorded being 8 km. The threat given by the appellants and their coaccused to the prosecution witnesses created a fear so as to keep them in the village.

I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record.

The most important document in this case is the inquest report Ex.PC prepared by ASI Gurdial Singh, allegedly after he had recorded the statement of PW2 Puran Singh Ex.PD at the Bangaliwala Bridge where the manner in which the occurrence took place, the name of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the reasons for not reporting the matter to the Police earlier are all given in detail. After going through Ex.PC. I find that there are certain peculiar features of the case which go to its root. Item No. 3 thereof requires an answer to the question, i.e. the date and time when information about death was received, but in answer thereto the figures and word "12.1.1985 at" are written. ASI Gurdial Singh wanted to write either the time or place or both on receipt of information about death, out he abstained from writing anything after the word "at". Possibly this was done with a purpose and it shows absence of any statement said to have been given by PW2 Puran Singh. The version given in the inquest report is on the basis of the alleged statement of Puran Singh, as reproduced in this document shows that by the time the inquest report was prepared, only the following information was with the said Assistant Sub Inspector :

".............I do my labour in the village. My nephew Sarwan Singh son of Teja Singh had contracted to do agriculture work with Jassa Singh and Nachhatar Singh sons of Teja Singh and got an amount of Rs. 1,300/. Thereafter Sarwan Singh stopped doing his agriculture work. Jassa Singh and Nachhatar Singh were demanding their amount back from Sarwan Singh, but his nephew told them that he would pay the amount after some time. This reply caused annoyance to Nachhatar Singh. On account of this annoyance, Jassa Singh and Nachhatar Singh sons of Teja Singh, in connivance with Jagir Singh son of Teja Singh and Resham Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Sirihali killed Sarwan Singh by causing injuries yesterday evening. Dead body of Sarwan Singh was lying in the fields out side the village. I after leaving Pargat Singh for guarding the dead body came to report the matter at the police station that you have met on the way and I have given my statement. Proceedings be stated."

The foregoing version in the inquest report is conspicuously silent as regards the weapons held by the appellants, the names of the eyewitnesses, the occasion why the deceased was present at the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence and other particulars now sought to be brought in by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, this version does not negative the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that it was a blind murder and there was no eyewitness and further that the names of the appellants and their coaccused (since acquitted) were mentioned only on suspicion. Out of this version, it is not possible to give a definite finding as to which of the appellants was holding which of the weapons. Weapons clearly have been attributed only in the statement Ex.PD. There looks to be no reason why those weapons were not attributed in the inquest report Ex.PC, specially when, according to the prosecution version, they have already been attributed in Ex.PD, which, according to the present prosecution version, was the first document to come into existence with regard to the occurrence. ASI Gurdial Singh was still to make out as to at what time or place the receipt of information about the murder should be mentioned in item No. 3 of the inquest report Ex.PC, at the time of preparation of this document and thereafter he forgot to fill in the blank.

No corroborative evidence which was available with the prosecution has been produced, as PW2 Puran Singh has specifically admitted that immediately after the occurrence, both the prosecution witnesses came to the village and narrated the occurrence to Balbir Singh brother of Puran Singh (PW2); Lambardar Milkha Singh and Panch Sulakhan Singh. Statements of these three witnesses could have been admissible as res gesti. Although the name of Balbir Singh Sarpanch was also mentioned as the person to whom the narration of occurrence was given, but, in the same breath Puran Singh (PW5) backed by saying that this Balbir Singh was not available at his residence.

Another aspect of the case is that the assailants had caused injuries near the field of Mula Singh and after Sarwan Singh was brought near the field of one Balbir Singh by dragging, some injuries were caused. It is only thereafter that Puran Singh and Pargat Singh, PWs left the place for the village. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 6.30 p.m., but after narrating the occurrence to the said persons, both the witnesses came back to the place of occurrence at about 11 p.m. The gap of about 41/2 hours is not explained in any way. After informing the said persons, there is no reason why the information could not be given to the Police. It was not a case that the eyewitnesses had some fear in the absence of any body else. In the case, admittedly, the matter was reported to the Lambardar, Sarpanch and some other persons of the village and still some more persons could be gathered for sending the information to the police. In my view, the dead body of Sarwan Singh (deceased) was found in the fields some time early in the morning and immediately thereafter, ASI Gurdial Singh was informed and he came to the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report without any definite information and it was only on suspicion that the names of the appellants and their coaccused were mentioned in the inquest report. The weapons of offence, the names of eyewitnesses and other details came into existence much later. The version that Ex.PD, the statement of PW2 Puran Singh, is the first document containing information about the crime is not supported by any plausible explanation. Once this conclusion is reached that inquest report Ex.PC was prepared much before the actual information of the occurrence, the whole prosecution version as stated by PWs Puran Singh and Pargat Singh has to be disbelieved.

May be the version of Balbir Singh (DW1) is correct. PW2 Puran Singh in his statement Ex.PD had mentioned that Sarwan Singh was dragged to the fields of Balbir Singh son of Teja Singh, but during his statement in Court, he stated :

"I do not know the father''s name of the said Balbir Singh."

This witness was confronted with Ex.PD wherein the father''s name of Balbir Singh is mentioned. No only the father''s name of Balbir Singh, but also the name of his village as Barra Sabhra is given therein. DW1 Balbir Singh has descried himself as son of Teja Singh and resident of Barra Sabhra. It cannot be said that DW1 Balbir Singh was entirely a stranger and was not knowing anything about the occurrence. PW2 Puran Singh has tried to conceal this fact. PW3 Pargat Singh has also tried to conceal this fact although, according to Ex.DA (his Police statement), this fact was mentioned. The conduct of both these witnesses seems to indicate that this concealment is purposeful. PW2 Puran Singh was convicted for keeping a Barchha in his possession about 31/2 years back. He was also prosecuted in an excise case twice earlier. He expressed ignorance about the prosecution of PW Pargat Singh. This witness admits that he was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case in 1966 and he has undergone that sentence. Similarly, PW3 Pargat Singh admitted that he was prosecuted twice in excise cases. The antecedents of these two witnesses show that they know something about criminal cases and their purposeful concealment cannot be regarded as unimportant. They must be knowing that it was Balbir Singh who had informed them and they did not name his name to be amongst the persons who had been narrated the occurrence. It is worth nothing that PW2 Puran Singh in his examinationinchief itself, first of all stated that they narrated this occurrence to Balbir Singh also, but in the next breath, he stated that Balbir Singh was not available at his house.

After the view I have taken above, the alleged recoveries and humanblood having been found on the recovered weapons become doubtful, especially, taking into account the way the ASI has conducted this investigation.

Motive, as stated above, was with regard to return of Rs. 1,300/ by Sarwan Singh (deceased) to Jassa Singh appellant, but statement of PW4 Wariam Singh who stately was a surety for return of the amount to Teja Singh, father of Jassa Singh appellant. This witness is crossexamination brought out a version that an amount of Rs. 250/ was paid by him to Teja Singh over and above the adjustment for the amount of three months for which Sarwan Singh worked with Teja Singh. He stated further that Sarwan Singh was to pay a sum of Rs. 300/ more. The version of PW2 Puran Singh, about this motive stands contradicted by PW4 Wariam Singh and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants had a motive to kill Sarwan Singh.

With the foregoing discussion in view, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them of the charges. Fine, if realised, be refunded to them.