Piara Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his judgment dated 16.12.1987 convicted the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order of even date sentenced him to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant feeling that he has been erroneously convicted and sentenced without any cogent, inspiring, impeccable, reliable and trustworthy evidence on the file has impugned the same in this appeal.

The prosecution story, in brief, is as under :

During the days of occurrence, Satvir now deceased who was a collateral of Ram Kumar was working as a labourer at Mansa. Prior to the occurrence, the deceased became acquainted with Piara Singh accused while they were living at village Jassi Bagwali. Later on they started living at Mansa.

On June 27, 1986, Ram Kumar visited Satvir deceased. At about 3.00 P.M. on June 28, 1986, Satvir and Ram Kumar went to vegetable market to take tea where Piara Singh accused met them. The accused who was in drunken condition took the deceased and Ram Kumar away from the market on the pretext that he had an urgent work. The accused took them under a Kikar tree and threatened the deceased on the ground that he was having illicit relations with his (accused''s) sister Amarjit Kaur. Immediately, the accused took out a knife upon which Satvir deceased ran towards railway line. The accused chased him and both of them started quarrelling with each other. The accused gave a knife blow on the left side of chest of Satvir who fell down. Ram Kumar raised an alarm and the accused fled away carrying his knife with him. Ram Kumar went near Satvir and found him dead. Ram Kumar then went to Police Station Mansa and lodged First Information Report Exhibit PF with Inspector Balbir Singh. The investigation in the case was conducted. Postmortem examination on the dead body of Satvir was got conducted.

On June 30, 1986 Piara Singh accused is alleged to have made extra judicial confession before Gamdur Singh who produced him before Inspector Balbir Singh. The accused was arrested and interrogated. The accused made a disclosure statement Exhibit P1 that he had kept concealed a Chhuri (knife) near the Ahata of Nirankari Bhawan and offered to get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, the accused got recovered Chhuri from the disclosed place.

After the completion of investigation, the accused was sent up for trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

After the conclusion of trial and on reappraisal of entire evidence on the record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

I have heard Shri A.P.S. Deol, Advocate for the accusedappellant and Shri H.S. Sran, Deputy Advocate General Punjab.

The learned defence counsel has raised three fold arguments. Firstly, he has contended that there is unexplained delay in sending the Special Report to the Illaqa Magistrate which is fatal to the prosecution. The second argument is that the presence of Baldev Singh at the spot at the time of occurrence is improbable; that he had not seen the occurrence and that in order to give strength to the prosecution case, he was planted afterwards. The third argument is that the extra judicial confession which is a weak type of evidence and that the evidence of Gamdur Singh P.W. 10 before whom accused Piara Singh is alleged to have made extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence.

Resisting the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sran has contended the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are impregnable inasmuch as he has done a threadbare analysis of the material on the record and no fault can be found with his scrutiny. He further contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to sustain the order of conviction.

The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 3.00 P.M. on June 28, 1986. First Information Report Exhibit PF was lodged by P.W. Ram Kumar at 4.00 P.M. at Police Station Mansa. The special report reached Illaqa Magistrate at 7.05 A.M. on June 29, 1986. Although there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police yet there is a long delay in delivering the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. It is not disputed that Police Station Mansa is only 100 yards from the residence of Illaqa Magistrate. The only explanation offered by P.W. 4 Constable Santokh Singh who delivered the copy of the First Information Report to the Illaqa Magistrate is that during the night of June 28, 1996 the Illaqa Magistrate was not available. As such he handed over the copy of the First Information Report to the Illaqa Magistrate at 7.05 A.M. on June 29, 1996. The explanation now sought to be projected by Constable Santokh Singh is conspicuously missing from daily diary report No. 40 dated June 29, 1986. It seems that Constable Santokh Singh has concocted this version later on in order to cover the delay. If the Illaqa Magistrate was not present at his house at one particular time, the constable should have made endeavours again and again to contact the Illaqa Magistrate but he has failed to do so. From the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am convinced that the First Information Report was not recorded at 4.00 P.M. as suggested by the prosecution and that it was recorded much later after making due consultations and deliberations and the same was antetimed. I will deal with the other arguments of the learned defence counsel keeping in view the fact that there is delay in recording the First Information Report.

Ram Kumar P.W. 7 who is alleged to have the seen the occurrence did not toe the line of prosecution as is evident from his statement which is reproduced below :

"Satvir deceased was the brother of my wife. Again said he was my brotherinlaw from wife''s side but from the brotherhood of my wife. Satvir originally belonged to village Niana, District Hissar. Satvir was working as a labourer at Mansa for the last about 15 years. I do not know Piara Singh. I do not know if Satvir had developed any relations with Piara Singh''s sister.

About 14 months back, I was brought to Mansa by the police. I identified the dead body of Satvir. I do not know anything about the occurrence. I do not know the accused present in Court. I do not know if the injuries were caused to Satvir by the accused."

He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor but nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited.

The second eye witness is Baldev Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of this witness does not find mention either in the First Information Report or in the inquest report. It appears that Baldev Singh had not witnessed the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution but was introduced to shape the prosecution case and to lend support to it. Further, if Baldev Singh had been present at the time of occurrence, one would normally expect his name in the First Information Report or in the inquest report. Baldev Singh who is the only eye witness left in this case has modulated his evidence to suit the prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing conviction of the accused. Baldev Singh cannot be considered as a reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony.

Had this witness been present at the spot and witnessed the occurrence, he would have accompanied Ram Kumar for lodging a report with the police. His village is at a distance of six miles from Mansa. He did not give any cogent reason for his presence at the spot. If his version had been true, the police would have recorded his statement in the inquest proceedings or his name would have figured in the First Information Report. He had also made a false statement in the Court that police recorded his statement in the inquest proceedings and that he had attested the same by putting his signatures. His attention was duly drawn to inquest report Exhibit PC where neither his statement has been recorded nor his signatures appear on the same. Moreover, his statement does not reconcile with the prosecution story. Baldev Singh stated that the deceased and the accused came running from the pond which is behind the railway track whereas according to the prosecution story, the accused and the deceased ran from the side of vegetable market. He further stated that the deceased fell with his face upwards and he died in that position whereas according to the prosecution, the deceased was lying with his face downwards. These discrepancies coupled with other infirmities as noticed above create a dent in the prosecution story. His presence at the spot at the time of occurrence, in my opinion, is not probable and his conduct is not natural. Therefore, I do not place any reliance on his statement.

Extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. Gamdur Singh P.W. 10 before whom the accused is alleged to have made extra judicial confession has admitted in his crossexamination as under :

"I appeared in 23 cases on behalf of the police of extrajudicial confession, pertaining to Police Mansa and Sardulgarh. I do not remember if I was cited as a witness in a case under security proceedings against Prem Singh of my village in 1978. I do not know if I was cited as a prosecution witness in security proceedings against Hakam Singh and Tehal Singh of my village in 1978. It is correct that I appeared as a prosecution witness in case State versus Gurdial Singh etc. Volunteered I was a recovery witness of the dead body being member panchayat. I do not know if the accused were acquitted in that case on 3.3.1982 by the Court of Shri N.S. Bhatia, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. It is correct that I lodged the report against Punjab Singh and Sher Singh etc. of my village under Section 307/34 IPC for firing at me. The accused were acquitted in that case. I appeared as a witness in a case under Sections 324/325 IPC against Janta Singh son of Dalip Singh of my village. Volunteered injuries were caused to me. I was convicted in the crosscase. The other party including Janta Singh was acquitted. I was challaned in a case under Section 302 IPC and convicted in that case for causing the death of Gurdev Singh. I was acquitted by the Hon''ble High Court. I cannot tell the date when I was acquitted but it was in 1983. I do not know if I appeared as a witness against Yog Dhian son of Piara Singh of Mansa in the Court of Shri Baldev Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa on 28.2.1983. I do not know if I appeared as a witness against Sadhu Ram son of Una Ram of Mansa and Bhan Chand son of Maghani Ram of Mansa before the Court of Shri Baldev Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa on 28.2.1983. I do not know if I appeared as a witness against Gobind Ram son of Rameshwar Dass of Mansa for causing injuries to Sadhu Aheed of Matili in the Court of Shri Baldev Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa on 28.2.1983. I do not know if I was cited as a prosecution witness in case State Versus Mukhtiar Singh and Nachhattar Singh sons of Dial Singh of my village on 22.5.1978 in security proceedings. Volunteered. The matter was compromised before the panchayat and I did not appear before the Court. I was prosecuted under Section 354 IPC for molesting Kartar Kaur. I was acquitted in that case. I do not know if I was cited as a prosecution witness in excise case against Gura Singh son of Sodagar Singh of my village in 1973. I do not know if I was cited as a prosecution witness in an excise case against Bahadur Singh son of Dalip Singh in 1983. Volunteered I produced said Bahadur Singh before the police. There were security proceedings between me and Jarnail Singh of Sadhuwal and Balwant Singh of my village. I was bound down in that case. I do not know if I was cited as a prosecution witness in case State Versus Babu Singh of my village in opium case in 1975. No recovery of 950 grams of opium was effected from Jaila Singh son of Santa Singh of my village. Volunteered I appeared as prosecution witness as I remained member panchayat for 10 years. I do not know if I was cited as a prosecution witness in the case against Jaila Singh. It is correct that there were security proceedings between myself Dhanna Singh, Bahadur Singh, Leela Singh and Shingara Singh. I was bound down for one year in that case."

The above admissions made by the witness clearly show that he is a stock witness of the police. He has also dubious character. In some cases where the particulars of the cases were put to him, he intentionally feigned ignorance about his being a prosecution witness. He himself has been prosecuted for various offences and sentenced. He is not a respectable person of the village. Gamdur Singh further admitted that he did not know how many brothers Piara Singh accused has. He did not know if the parents of the accused were alive or dead. He never visited his house. He had no social dealings with the accused. In these circumstances, when the accused had no dealings with Gamdur Singh P.W., there was no occasion for him to approach Gamdur Singh to suffer an extra judicial confession and repose confidence in him. The village of this witness is about 8/9 miles from Mansa and at a distance of two kilometres from bus stop of village Kot Dharmu, where the accused is alleged to have met this witness and made extrajudicial confession of his guilt. Moreover, Piara Singh is not shown to have an affinity with Gamdur Singh so that he could approach the latter, confide in him and make a clean breast of his guilt because otherwise human psychology is that nobody confesses that he has committed the offence. Rather, he will conceal the commission of the offence lest he should suffer ignominy in biradari and be put to shame if not legal punishment. Extra judicial confession can be taken alongwith other piece of evidence. If other piece of evidence is reliable and can be safely acted upon, extrajudicial confession might provide strength to that evidence. In this case, I have disbelieved the prosecution on other aspects of the case.

No other point has been urged.

For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the Sessions Judge Bathinda was not justified in returning a verdict of guilt against the accusedappellant. So, this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.

The appellant shall stand discharged from bail bonds, and surety bonds, if any.