Pipal Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Four persons named Gurmit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Shubeg Singh and Malook Singh who were all related to each other intersect collaterals, were standing outside the houses of Man Singh and Darshan Singh of their village Nurpur, tehsil Zira, district Ferozepur, around 7.00 P.M. on 30th August, 1986. Accused appellant Pipal Singh passed that way in a drunkard condition and made a `Khangura'' at them. All the four persons aforesaid protested whereupon hot words were exchanged between them and the accused appellant. Pitched as one against them four, accused appellant Pipal Singh went back home hurling abuses on them, even on the way.

Shortly thereafter accusedappellant Pipal Singh returned thereto, through the straight lane, carrying double barrel licensed gun of his father Piara Singh, fully loaded. His father Piara Singh also followed the accused appellant carrying a `Takua'' in his hand. Father then exhorted the son to fire at his aforesaid four victims and settle scares there and then once for all. Upon it Pipal Singh fired a shot aimed at his victims aforesaid from the double barrel gun releasing two cartridges simultaneously. Pellets emanating therefrom hit all the four victims resulting in the death of Shubeg Singh while the remaining three injured companions of the deceased in Gurmit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Malook Singh sustained injuries therefrom on various parts of their bodies. As disclosed by Malook Singh in the First Information Report, Malook Singh sustained injuries on left side of his deltoid and the wrist, Shubeg Singh was injured in the chest and abdomen, Sukhwinder Singh was injured in the forehead and Gurmit Singh on his right arm.

On being charged with the commission of offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code both the accused in father Piara Singh and son Pipal Singh and in respect of their respective individual charges under sections 29 and 27 of the Arms Act respectively each one of the two accused individually pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 4th November, 1987 learned trial court acquitted the fatheraccused named Piara Singh and convicted accused Pipal Singh of the commission of the offence under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. For his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code accused appellant Pipal Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine accusedappellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. For his conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code recorded separately thrice over for attempt on the lives of Malook Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh remaining three injured, accusedappellant was individually awarded rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay Rs. 250/ as fine for every one of his three convictions. In default of payment of fine imposed separately in all the three cases aforesaid accusedappellant was ordered to undergo separately rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. For his conviction, under section 27 of the Arms Act, accused appellant Pipal Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Feeling aggrieved from the decision of the learned trial court convictaccused Pipal Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 590DB of 1987 in this Court.

We have heard Shri R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate with Shri Bipan Ghai, Advocate for the appellant, Shri P.S. Kang, Advocate, for the State and have carefully perused the evidence on record.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the initial delay of 4 hours in lodging of the First Information Report from 7.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M., and a further delay of another 5 hours thereafter in delivery of special report to the Illaqa Magistrate from 11.00 P.M. to 4.00 A.M. on the next day viz. 31 st August, 1986, throws a great deal of doubt on the prosecution story. The argument is wholly without merit. it was natural for the author of the First Information Report to attend to Shubeg Singh now deceased and the remaining three injured (including himself) earlier than lodging the First Information Report. It was natural for them to go to the hospital before going to the Police Station. It was held by the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 and State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407 that almost in similar circumstances a delay of 4 to 6/2 hours in lodging the First Information Report did not throw any doubt on the prosecution version of the occurrence.

Similarly a delay of another 5 hours in delivery of special report to the Illaqa Magistrate has been duly explained in the affidavit filed by Constable Gurjant Singh No. 1415 on 28th September, 1987. It was held by the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 and Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana, 1983(2) RCR(Crl.) 532 (SC) : AIR 1983 SC 680, "Mere delay in despatch of the FIR is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. The First Information was given at 7.00 p.m. The special report which was prepared thereafter was despatched to the Magistrate at Karnal 13 miles away, by Special Messenger. it reached the Magistrate at 3.00 a.m. One must make some allowance for delays arising in the course of ordinary conduct of human business. After the First Information. Report is given, some time must have been taken to prepare the special report. A special messenger must have been sent for. Instruction must have been given. He must have made some preparations to go upon the journey, perhaps have a meal and a change of dress. If he was travelling by some vehicle, there must have been some further delay to arrange for a vehicle. After reaching Karnal, the messenger must have made some other arrangements to go from the place where the vehicle must have mae some other arrangemets to go from the place where the vehicle have stopped to the residence of the Magistrate. Held : There was no delay." In this view of the matter the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this score as well.

Secondly it was urged that vide recovery memo Exhibit PR two empties proved to have been fired by Pipal Singh from the licensed double barrel gun of his father Piara Singh were recovered at a distance of 17 Karams from the place of occurrence. Pipal Singh having fired the gun at the place of occurrence, there was no occasion for him to take out and throwaway the empties at a distance of 17 Karams therefrom. This argument again is without merit. May be, the accused appellant deemed it safe and feasible to empty the gun to destory evidence of its use by him while doing the criminal act attributed to him. The course of action could have some reflection or relevance if these empties had been found at or around the place of occurrence. Their collection by the police from a distance of 17 Karmas from the place of occurrence does not persuade us to find out an explanation for this doing of the accused or infer anything therefrom. This circumstance, therefore, does not have any bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accusedappellant.

Thirdly it was urged that the place of occurrence being in village abadi the Investigating Agency could certainly associate independent witnesses of the locality and its failure to do so reflects adversely upon the credibility and authenticity of prosecution case set up against the accused. Stamped injured eyewitnesses of the occurrence who are also collaterals of the deceased had certainly to be preferred by the Investigating Agency over the unconnected witnesses of the locality (if at all available) because none of them had actually witnessed the occurrence.

Lastly it was urged that most of the pellet injuries have been sustained by the injured on their backs, the assertion of the injured eyewitnesses regarding identity of their assailant in accusedappellant ought not to have been accepted on its face value. This argument again is wholly. without merit. Victims had an occasion to see their assailant before the commencement of onslaught upon them when he suddenly emerged from the street after bringing loaded double barrel gun of his father Piara Singh from his residential house nearby and, therefore, could not be expected to err in his identity more so when they had exchanged hot words with him, while standing face to face along with him, shortly before it, when the accusedappellant made the `Khangura'' while passing across them from the place of occurrence.

No other point having been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant for assailing the impugned judgment of the learned trial court, Criminal Appeal filed by the accused appellant against it gets completely bereft of any merit therein and is consequently dismissed.