Parkash Singh alias Pashu vs State of Punjab

K.S. Bhatia, J.

Parkash Singh alias Pashu has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment dated 1511988 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused death of Shamsher Singh on 171985 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as well as to pay a fine Rs. 1000/ in default of payment of which fine he has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.

Case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on 1785 at about 9.30 P.M. Pargat Singh (PW3) was present in his house along with his brother Shamsher Singh deceased and cousin Niranjan Singh (PW4) in village Dhun. Parkash Singh alias Pashu gave a call to Shamsher Singh alias Shera at that, time from outside and asked him to come out. In response to his said call, Shamsher Singh went outside the house and he as well as Parkash Singh started moving away. Feeling suspicious, PWs Partap Singh and Niranjan Singh followed them. When they reached near periphery of the village, Mohan Singh son of Natha Singh resident of village Dhun was noticed standing there with a Dang in his hand. At the sight of Shamsher Singh, Mohan Singh exhorted Parkash Singh stating that Shamsher Singh be taught a lesson for not serving them liquor on credit basis whereupon Parkash Singh who was carrying a takwa in his hand gave a takwa blow to Shamsher Singh as a result of which he fell down. Aforesaid Mohan Singh also joined him in causing injuries to Shamsher Singh. PWs Pargat Singh and Niranjan Singh raised an alarm at which both the accused ran away along with their respective weapons. When the PWs went near Shamsher Singh, they found him dead. Pargat Singh and Niranjan Singh started crying and their cries attracted Sarbjit Singh and Bawa Singh to the spot. Leaving Sarbjit Singh and Bawa Singh near the dead body, Pargat Singh (PW3) left for police station, Harike to lodge the report.

On arrival at Police Station, Harike, Pargat Singh (PW3) made statement Exhibit PE before SubInspector Dev Raj (PW5) on the basis of which present case against Parkash Singh and Mohan Singh was registered resulting in a murdertrial. Mohan Singh, however, expired during pendency of the trial.

On trial, Parkash Singh alias Pashu was convicted and sentenced as detailed above. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, he preferred present appeal Criminal Appeal No. 89DB1988.

We have heard Mr Ranjit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate on behalf of the State of Punjab and have carefully gone through the records with their assistance.

After going through the record the impression left on our mind is that Pargat Singh (PW3) and Niranjan Singh (PW4) perhaps did not witness the occurrence. It is said that Parkash Singh alias Pashu called Shamsher Singh at about (9/9.30 P.M., that they moved together away from the house and that PWs followed feeling suspicious. There was no occasion to feel suspicious about and no suggestion is forthcoming on the record which could raise such suspicion in their minds. Pargat Singh (PW3) has admitted during crossexamination that he had not asked deceased nor the accused as to why they were going. He has further added that Parkash accused did not come to call the deceased at night earlier but sometime he used to come to call him in day time, meaning thereby it was not the first occasion. If Shamsher Singh had been going with Parkash Singh earlier as well, his brother need not have felt apprehensive on his so doing even if it was 9 P.M. No previous back ground with Parkash Singh alias Pashu has even been brought out on the record and Mohan Singh was not in the picture at that time.

Only two injuries have been described in the earliest version provided in Exhibit PE out of which one was attributed to appellant Parkash Singh and the other to coaccused Mohan Singh (since deceased) as against five found at the time of postmortem examination conducted on 2785 at 11 A.M. Exhibit PA is the correct carbon copy of the postmortem report and that as well as the statement of Dr. J. S. Cheema (PW) show that two incised wounds and three blunt weapon injuries were found on the dead body all of which were antemortem in nature. The incised wound which could have contributed to the death of Shamsher Singh, according to Dr. Jasbir Singh Cheema (PWI) is described in injury No. 5 and that has not been attributed to the accused in Exhibit PE. This direct conflict with the medical evidence reinforces our conclusion that Pargat Singh (PW3) perhaps did not witness the occurrence. Had he witnessed the occurrence he would not have described two injuries instead of five. It appears that on having learnt about the death of Shamsher Singh which took place outside in the village near periphery, it was concluded by Pargat Singh (PW3) that the same must have been committed by Parkash Singh alias Pashu with whom he had left and injuries observed by him having been caused by two different weapons, Mohan Singh was introduced on account of previous enmity. It has come in crossexamination of Pargat Singh that he and his brother Shamsher Singh deceased were accused in an earlier case with regard to the murder of Joginder Singh and coaccused Mohan Singh was a prosecution witness in the case against them.

Niranjan Singh (PW4) belongs to a different village named Marhana and does not reside at Dhun. His statement was recorded by the police on the following morning, according to him at about 8 A.M. and according to SubInspector Dev Raj (PW5) at about 8.30 A.M. If he had been present at the time of the alleged occurrence, recording of his statement would not have been that delayed. Delayed volunteering of the statement depicts abnormal conduct. Explanation advanced by him is that he went to his village Marhana to inform his parents about the death of Shamsher Singh. There was no urgency for the same and ordinarily he would have preferred to accompany Pargat Singh to the police station rather than to proceed to his village. No explanation with regard to his disappearance has been advanced by Pargat Singh (PW3). He has simply stated that he left Sarbjit Singh and Bawa Singh with the dead body and himself went to police station Harike to lodge report. His statement is absolutely silent with regard to Niranjan Singh. Where did he evaporate is not borne out from the testimony of PW Pargat Singh, what to say of the suggestion that he proceeded to his village. Niranjan Singh (PW4) appears to have been introduced to reconcile the discrepancy between the medical evidence and statement Exhibit PE of PW Pargat Singh.

Pargat Singh (PW3) admittedly narrated rest of the injuries after examining the same. He has also admitted that he narrated only two injuries in Exhibit PE and has advanced no explanation whatsoever with regard to absence of the rest of the three injuries. He has clearly stated in crossexamination that he has not mentioned in statement Exhibit PE about the second injury given on the neck by Parkash Singh and that he had mentioned the injury on seeing that when the police arrived the next morning. The witness has further added that it is correct that he had mentioned only two injuries one incised by Parkash Singh and one by Mohan Singh in his statement Exhibit PE. This position obviously was required to be reconciled by the police. To us it appears that for the said purpose Niranjan Singh (PW5) was introduced. Village Marhana is at a distance of 6 kilometers from village Dhun as per crossexamination of Pargat Singh (PW3) and so he could have been introduced by 8.30 A.M. on the following day i.e., 271985. His statement was recorded to bring the ocular amount in line with the medical evidence is further supported by the fact that he has stated that he, Pargat Singh and Shamsher Singh had all taken their meals about two hours before the occurrence. That statement has been introduced to explain the contents of the stomach of the accused. According to medical evidence, the stomach of the dead body contained 50 cc of partially digested food. If we refer to the statement of Pargat Singh (PW3) on the point, he has stated in clear terms that they had not consumed liquor before the occurrence on that day and that they had also not taken their meals. For all these reasons PW Niranjan Singh appears : to have been introduced as witness and he perhaps did not witness the occurrence.

For the foregoing reasons, the ocular account of this case which consists of PWs Pargat Singh and Niranjan Singh only, does not inspire confidence. Even if it may be accepted that deceased Shamsher Singh left with accused Parkash Singh alias Pashu, as suggested by PW Pargat Singh, if PWs Pargat Singh and Niranjan Singh did not witness the occurrence, he cannot possibly be made responsible for the death of Shamsher Singh in a conclusive manner. That circumstance may be sufficient to arise suspicion against the appellant but suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of legal proof. The prosecution therefore, has not been able to bring home the guilt to Parkash Singh alias Pashu and he is entitled to benefit of the doubt. The result is, that we accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant Parkash Singh alias Pashu and instead acquit him of the charge against him giving him benefit of the doubt. He be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Fine, if realised, be refunded to the appellant.

JUDGMENT accordingly.