Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.

Nirmal Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Swarup Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and required to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries to Ajit Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and required to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. He has also been convicted for offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Ranjit Singh son of the aforesaid Nirmal Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and a similar sentence has been awarded and it has been ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

Briefly the story of the prosecution is that at 5 p.m. on 25.9.1989 in village Kheri which is at the outskirts of Ropar town, Sucha Singh alongwith Ajit Singh, his son and Swaran Singh, his daughter''s son, went to the house of Nirmal Singh at 5 p.m. to lodge a protest that Ranjit Singh had given beating to his grandson, Ravinder Singh, allegedly on the plea that Ravinder Singh was sitting near the Gurdwara situated in the vicinity where a large number of women folk also passed through, Nirmal Singh armed with a single barrel gun and his son Ranjit Singh armed with a gandasi came out of the house. Ranjit Singh gave a gandasi blow on the face of Swaran Singh but when Ajit Singh (PW4) tried to separate them, Nirmal Singh fired two or three shots which hit on the abdomen of Swaran Singh as well as Ajit Singh. Both the aforesaid injured fell on the ground. When the complainant Sucha Singh raised an alarm "Marta Marta", the accused entered into their own house together with their respective weapons. With the help of other two grandsons, Ravinder Singh and Devinder Singh, the two injured Swaran Singh and Ajit Singh, were carried in a vehicle to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Shri Inderjit Singh, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Ropar, meanwhile received information on a wireless and he arrived at village Kheri. Sucha Singh complainant met Shri Inderjit Singh at the outskirts of village Kheri and his statement Exhibit PG was recorded and it was despatched through constable Ajit Singh for registration of a case. Shri Nathu Ram, Assistant SubInspector, recorded the First Information Report at 7.45 p.m. the same day. The ''special report'' was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at Ropar at 3 a.m. on the intervening night of 27/28.9.1989. The aforesaid Inspector, thereafter, reached the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and also took into possession the blood stained earth. He, also took into possession the three empty cartridges of .12 bore gun which were picked up from the place of occurrence, which are Exhibits P6 to P8. The Inspector was also able to apprehend and arrest Nirmal Singh and also took into possession the gun Exhibit P1. Swaran Singh was separately sent to Civil Hospital, Ropar, but on reaching there, he died. Dr. Anil Gupta (PW7) examined Ajit Singh son of Sucha Singh, eyewitness, who had four gun shot injuries. The postmortem examination on the dead body of Swaran Singh son of Didar Singh was held on 28.9.1989 by Dr. Jasbir Singh (PW2). Ranjit Singh, the coaccused, who had absconded to Rajasthan, could be arrested on 24.10.1989. The .12 bore gun and three cartridges cases were examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and report Exhibit PQ shows that the cartridges in question were fired from the licensed gun of Nirmal Singh, Exhibit P1.

PW2, Dr. Jasbir Singh, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Ropar, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Swaran Singh son of Didar Singh, aged 35 and the injuries found on his person were as under :

Multiple penetrating wounds varing from 4 mm to 8 mm are present on the left side of front of chest and abdomen. Extending from midline to mid exilmary fine on the left side, main concentration of the wound was on the left half of epigastrim where there is wound 3 x 3 cms. The margin of wound are black charged and inverted. There are corresponding holes in the clothes shirt and Banyan.

Incised wound on the left side of upper lip transversally placed. Size 3 x 1 x.5cms. On tracing the larger wound in the epigastram a cylindrul card board like object size length was 2.75 cm diametre 1.75 cms and a round discoid board like material of size diametre 1.5 cm also found. These were preserved. The peritorial capacity was full of blood about 2.5 litre in quantity. The penetrating wound are traceable to abdominal cavity. Pallet like metal pieces 6 in number were recovered from the peritorial, cavity and various organs and were preserved. On inspection there is a large lacerated wound of the abdominal aorta in the aepigestic region.

The body contained about 200 ml of semidigested food and the Medical Officer opined that the injuries were on the abdominal aorta and other organs as well which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW7 Dr. Anil Gupta examined Ajit Singh son of Sucha Singh, aged 40 and the injuries on his person were as under :

Lacerated wound 2 x 2 cm with signed inverted margines 3 cm above their right nipple. External bleeding was present. Crepitus was felt around it. X ray was advised.

Lacerated wound 5 x 2 cm traversely placed in epigestric region. Advised Xray abdomen erect.

Lacerated wound 11/2 x 11/2 cm in the first web space of left hand external bleeding was present. Margines were signed and inverted. Swelling of the dorsum of hand was present with crepitus. Xray was advised.

Lacerated wound 21/2 x 21/2 cm in the lateral border of the left hand with averted margines, External bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

The Medical Officer opined that the injuries were caused with a fire arm.

PW5 Dr. P. Bhattacharya, the radiologist of P.G.I., Chandigarh, where Ajit Singh injured was brought for treatment, opined that there were fractures of 2nd, 4th and 5th metacarpal shafts. He also proved the corresponding skiagrams.

PW8 Dr. Karambir Singh, the then Resident Medical Officer of P.G.I. Chandigarh, had/performed an operation on the person of Ajit Singh and pellets were taken out by him. He also opined that the injuries were dangerous. The injured Ajit Singh was discharged on 4.10.1989.

PW3 is Sucha Singh, the complainant eyewitness, who has described the entire occurrence and specifically deposed in the trial Court that Ranjit Singh gave a gandasi blow on the face of Swaran Singh and his father Nirmal Singh fired three shots and out of them, one hit on the abdomen of Swaran Singh and Ajit Singh (PW4) also received gunshot injury on his abdomen and as a consequence thereof. Swaran Singh as well as Ajit Singh fell on the ground and both the accused went inside their own house with their respective weapons.

PW4 Ajit Singh is an injured witness who had as many as four gun shot injuries in and around his abdomen and his hands. He was, ultimately, brought to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he was operated upon and after treatment discharged on 4.10.1989.

PW6 is Shri Harjit Singh, Sarpanch of village Kheri, who is a formal witness and identified Swaran Singh deceased in the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Ropar on 27.9.1989.

PW9 Shri Nathu Ram, Assistant SubInspector, brought a ruqa from Shri Inderjit SinghInspector, on the basis of which, a formal First Information Report was recorded at Police Station, Ropar on 27.9.1989. He has denied that the First Information Report was recorded after midnight at about 2.30 a.m.

PW10 Shri Kabal Singh, Constable, is a formal witness, who carried the body of Swaran Singh from the place of occurrence to Civil Hospital, Ropar, where he was declared dead and ultimately, the dead body was shifted to the mortuary.

PW11 Bihari Lal, Constable, carried the special report and delivered it at the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar at 3 a.m. on 28.9.1989.

PW12 is Vas Dev, Assistant Sub Inspector, the then Sub Inspector of Ropar, who partly investigated the case and succeeded in arresting Ranjit Singh on 24.10.1989 from Rajasthan and later on as a consequence of his disclosure statement, he got the gandasi, Exhibit P26, recovered from the place of concealment. The licence in respect of the gun of his father Nirmal Singh was also recovered at the instance of Ranjit Singh on 27.10.1989.

PW13 Hirblas Singh, Assistant SubInspector, is also a kind of formal witness regarding recovery of gandasi at the instance of Ranjit Singh vide memo Exhibit PW 12/D.

PW14 Shri Charan Singh, an agriculturist of village Kheri, is a witness to the recovery of gandasi at the instance of Ranjit Singh, coaccused.

PW16 is Shri Inderjit Singh, the then Inspector and the Station House Officer of Police Station, Ropar, who, first of all, reached village Kheri and Sucha Singhcomplainant met him at the outskirts of the village and his statement was recorded and it was despatched to the Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station for formal registration of the case and thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted the investigation, as described above.

PW17 is Shri Daljit Singh, Draftsman, who prepared the site plan Exhibit PW17/A.

Nirmal Singh accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial Court. The relevant part of his statement was as under :

"The case is false. I am innocent. On the alleged day of occurrence Swaran Singh and Ajit Singh came to my house to take revenge of previous altercation between Ravinder Singh and Ranjit Singh. I asked them to go back. But Swaran Singh fired a shot from pistol at me. I got aside and that shot hit my son Paramjit Singh. Ajit Singh gave gandasi blow on my head from blunt side. To save us from Swaran Singh and Ajit Singh my son Harvinder Singh fired shot from my licensed gun in our self defence. I went to police but the police detained there and false case was made on Ranjit Singh was not there at the time of occurrence."

Ranjit Singh was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial Court and his plea was that he has been falsely implicated and he was not even present at the time of occurrence.

DW1 Dr. H.N. Sharma, who was an ENT specialist and Medical Officer at Ropar, examined Paramjit Singh son of Nirmal Singh, aged 8 years on 14.12.1989 and the injuries found on his person were as under :

The patient was conscious. Well oriented in time and space and all vital signs were found to be normal.

A diffusely hypopigmanted area oval in shape with dimension of 1" x I" on the left forearm. Dorsom lateral aspect, 1" from mid line, cubital fossa 5" from lower aspect of palm half inch from midline of left forearm in the venter of oval area was found a hard rodular area with blackish view. This was found had and non tender. Xray of the left forearm was advised.

He could not opine whether the injuries in question were at all gun shot wounds. It was also advised that patient should have Xray examination but no Xray report was ever shown to him.

DW2 Dr. Raman Nijhawan, Radiologist, examined the injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh on 15.12.1989 and opined that there was metallic foreign substance in his body and that the possibility of its being a pellet cannot be ruled out.

DW3 Chhinder Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh deposed that about three years ago when she came back to her house she saw her husband Nirmal Singh and her son Paramjit Singh having fired arm injuries. She deputed Nirmal Singh to go to the Police Station, Ropar to lodge a report but instead he was arrested by the police. She did not know as to who caused injuries to Swaran Singh resulting in his death. She did not give any application to the police authorities that her husband and her son had been wrongly implicated.

Besides Sucha Singh, the complainant, in this case, Ajit Singh PW4 who had as many as four injuries, which were also received from the firearm, has supported the story that as soon as they had gone to the premises of the accused to make a remonstrance about the misconduct of Ranjit Singh, they were attacked. It is well established that Ranjit Singh armed with a gandasi opened the attack and caused an injury on the face of Swaran Singh. The contention that he should not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not acceptable. The learned Deputy Advocate General has referred to Yallappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 501, where also it was observed that common intention to cause death can develop even at the time of actual occurrence. The very purpose of opening the attack with gandasi on the face of Swaran Singh was that both the son as well as the father were competing in inflicting injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature notwithstanding that the injury caused by Ranjit Singh was ultimately found to be a simple one. The contention that the act of Ranjit Singh should be segregated or that he should have been held guilty only for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not acceptable in the circumstances of the case.

The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the injured and the deceased had come to the premises of the appellants and that the occurrence took place at the premises of the appellants or that the appellants were entitled to act in selfdefence or that the offence was a smaller than the one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is also not acceptable inasmuch as the deceased and the complainant were totally unarmed and they had gone only for an oral remonstrance regarding Ranjit Singh having given beatings to Ravinder Singh alias Pinki, a grandson of the complainant.

The defence version that Paramjit Singh, a son of Nirmal Singh, aged 8, received a gun shot injury from the complainant has no legs to stand inasmuch the occurrence now in question took place at 5.00 p.m. on 25.9.89 and the medical examinations of Paramjit Singh referred to by DW1 Dr. H. S. Sharma and DW2 Dr. Raman Nijhawan were held on 14.12.1989 and 15.12.1989, i.e., after two months and 18 days of the occurrence and this socalled injury of a minor son of Nirmal Singh obviously had nothing to do with the occurrence now under consideration. The learned counsel for the appellants also in fact did not lay much stress on this belated plea for which an attempt was made in the trial Court.

In view of the evidence and reasons discussed above, we are of the view that there is no good ground for interference. The conviction of Nirmal Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and of Ranjit Singh under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. Similarly, the conviction of Nirmal Singh for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and of Ranjit Singh for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is also affirmed. However, the period of imprisonment for this offence is reduced from seven years to three years.

The conviction of Nirmal Singh for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act recorded by the learned trial Court on 14.9.1993 and the period of imprisonment ordered is hereby affirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently.

JUDGMENT accordingly.