Pritpal Singh vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—Pritpal Singh appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 27.1.1986, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Priptal Singh has filed the present appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated are :

Teja Singh bails form village Harnampura. He has a plot of land bearing municipal No. 723 in Partap Nagar opposite to Gurdwara Mata Bhagwanti on Basant Road, Ludhiana. He is settled in England or the last 2025 years. His brother Mohinder Singh used to manage the affairs of Teja Singh in his absence and used to look after this plot. Rachhpal Singh PW6 is a son of Mohinder Singh abovementioned.

Pritpal Singh appellant and Manjit Singh are the sons of Jagir Singh. These persons had taken illegal possession of a portion of plot No. 723 and had placed a wooden khokha thereon. This happened about two three years prior to the present occurrence which took place on 6.4.1985.

On 6.4.1985 Rachhpal Singh PW accompanied by Chet Ram PW7 and Himmat Singh deceased in this case, went to the abovementioned plot. Rachhpal Singh planned to get some earth work done on a portion of the land. Himmat Singh was working as a Fitter in the workshop of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation at Ludhiana. Rachhpal Singh was employed as Adda Conductor with this Corporation and Chet Ram was working as a driver therewith. On reaching the plot, all these persons started examining the level of the land and discussing as to where earth need be put. On hearing the voices of the witnesses, Pritpal Singh appellant and his brother Manjit Singh emerged out of the khokha. Pritpal Singh was carrying a single barrel gun while Manjit Singh was having a Sabbal (a piece of thick iron rod). They asked Rachhpal Singh and his companions as to why had come there and who they were. At this, Himmat Singh remarked that they had no dispute with them and were examining the plot for putting earth in order to level it. Pritpal Singh and his brother then remarked how they dared to come to the plot and that they would teach them a lesson. At this, Manjit Singh gave a blow with his Sabbal on the right eyebrow of Himmat Singh. Manjit Singh exhorted his brother Pritpal Singh to shoot Himmat Singh. Pritpal Singh then fired first short with his gun, which hit the right thigh of Himmat Singh. He fired another shot which struck on the front of Himmat Singh''s neck. He fired third shot hitting the right leg of Himmat Singh. Himmat Singh fell down. Rachhpal Singh and Chet Ram ran away. The accused continued shouting that they would kill whosoever coma. Chet Ram and Rachhpal Singh took shelter behind a stack of rubbish and a Beri tree. When both the accused left the spot along with their weapons, Rachhpal Singh and Chet Ram went near Himmat Singh and found that he was already dead. Leaving behind Chet Ram to guard the dead body, Rachhpal Singh rushed towards Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana, but came across ASI Malkiat Singh, incharge, Police Post, Basant Park, on the way. He made his report to that police officer, which was reduced into writing and was signed by Rachhpal Singh. It was sent to the police station for registration of a case.

ASI Malkiat Singh then accompanied Rachhpal Singh to the spot. He found Dildhiraj Singh and Chet Ram present near the dead body. He prepared inquest report and inspected the spot. He despatched the dead body of Himmat Singh for autopsy. He also took into possession bloodstained earth after putting it into a sealed parcel and prepared the visual site plan.

At the Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana, the first information report was recorded by Inspector Ajit Singh 10.25 a.m. Copies of the special report were sent to the higher authorities. A copy thereof was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 1.50 p.m. on that day.

Dr.Prabhjit Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana conducted autopsy on the dead body of HImmat Singh and noticed the following injuries thereon :

Lacerated wound 5 cm x 21/2 cm on front of neck with bruised inverted margins. The wound was directed posteriorly and towards right.

Three lacerated wounds with reverted margins in an area of 3 cm x 3 cm on the right suprascapular region.

Lacerated circular wound 1 cm x 11/2 cm on the back of right thigh on its posteriorlateral aspect in the middle. The margins were inverted.

Lacerated circular wound with inverted margins very close, i.e., 1/2cm away to injury No. 3.

Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2cm on the front of right thigh in the middle. The margin were everted.

Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" muscle deep, just above right eyebrow.

Abrasions on the right back in the middle 1" x 1".

Lacerated wound 10" x 1" on the outer aspect of right thigh.

On exploration, injury No. 1 was found directed posteriorly and towards right side communicating with injury No. 2. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were communicating with injury No. 5. On dissection, two pieces of card wads were found from the track. The stomach contained 200 cc of semidigested liquid. Small intestine contained gases while the large intestine contained facial matter and gases. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was the shock and hemorrhage resulting from gunshot injuries. All the injuries were antemortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 was also individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death took place immediately on infliction of the injuries. The doctor also opined that the injuries were caused with gunshot fired from a range of six feet. Injury No. 6 could be caused with a weapon like Sabbal, Exhibit P17, with had been recovered at the instance of Manjit Singh. During crossexamination he stated that injuries Nos. 3 and 4 could be caused from the pellet of the same shot in view of their location. Injury No. 6 could also be caused from the pellet of the same shot in view of their location. Injury No. 6 could also because if the victim struck against a hard location. Injury No. 6 could also be caused if the victim struck against a hard surface. The suffering of injury No. 7 during scuffle could not be ruled out. Injury No. 8 could be caused with some heavy blunt weapon.

ASI Malkiat Singh arrested Pritpal Singh on 10.4.1985. Manjit Singh was arrested on 11.4.1985. On interrogation, Manjit singh made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a Sabbal in a heap of iron scraps lying on the roof of his house. The statement was recovered and in pursuance thereof, Manjit Singh led the police party to his house and got Sabbal Exhibit P17 recovered from the Iron scraps. It was taken into possession. On 12.4.1985 Jagir Singh was arrested. He was carrying a licensed single barrel gun and four live cartridges. These articles were taken into possession along with the licence.

After completion of the investigation, Pritpal Singh, Manjit Singh and Jagir Singh were challenged. The learned trial Judge acquitted Manjit Singh and Jagir Singh and convicted and sentenced Pritpal Singh appellant, as mentioned in the opening part of the judgment.

Shri P.S.Mann, Senior Advocate, counsel for the appellant, has argued that there is unexplained inordinate delay in the lodging of the report. The contents of the intestines of Himmat Singh deceased suggest that he had died early in the morning before sunrise. The report was lodged at noontime. It has been wrongly shown to have been lodged at 10.25 a.m. The report reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at Ludhiana, itself at 1.50 p.m. The Court are not far away form Police Station, Division No. 6. There is no explanation whatsoever for this delay in lodging the report. There is merit in this contention. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place at about 6 a.m. According to Rachhpal Singh, he made a statement at 10 a.m., i.e., four hours after the incident. It could be have taken such a long time for Rachhpal Singh to travel a distance of a kilometer or so. Further, if the report has been actually recorded at 10.25 a.m., it would have reached the learned Magistrate within 15 or 20 minutes. Though delay in loading a report is not fatal to the prosecution case, it robs the prosecution story of its spontaneity. It lays it open to charge that garbled version of facts has been put up, false witnesses have been introduced and innocent had been accused. A delayed report enjoins the Court to sift the prosecution evidence with still greater care and caution.

The prosecution version that in the early hours of the morning, Rachhpal Singh accompanied by two coworkers had gone to the spot just to survey as to which portion of the plot of his uncle required earth of be put in, is not very convincing. There was no urgency for these witnesses to go to the spot so early for their avowed purpose. It is all the moreso because Rachhpal Singh had joined duty at 5.45 a.m. He had to issue tickets to the passengers. He admitted that after the incident he came to the Bus Stand and issued a docket. Rachhpal Singh Gill D.W. 2, Station Supervisor, an employee of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Ludhiana, has deposed that on 6.4.1985 Rachhpal Singh PW, ADda Conductor, had issued docket Exhibit DB regarding bus bearing registration No. PJG7086 at 6.30 am for the LudhianaBhatinda route. This docket is given to the Conductor of the concerned bus by Adda Incharge when the bus is about to leave. In this situation, Mr.P.S.Mann, learned counsel for the appellant, was fully justified in contending that Rachhpal Singh PW was at the Bus Stand, Ludhiana, at 6.30 a.m. Only then he could hand over the docket to the Conductor of the Bus which had to go to Bhatinda. The presence of Rachhpal Singh PW at the spot at the material time becomes doubtful. Same is the case with Chet RAm PW7. He is a driver employed by the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation at Ludhiana. He had admitted that some time prior to the present occurrence he had met with an accident and had fractured his pelvic bona and, for that reason, he was not driving the buses and had been posted on light jobs. On the fateful day he was on leave. He was present at the Bus Stand at 6 and 6.15 a.m. in connection with his duty. He also does not say that Rachhpal Singh PW had asked him to reach the Bus Stand on 6.4.1985 at 6 a.m. in connection with his duty. He also does not say that Rachhpal Singh PW has asked him to reach the Bus Stand on 6.4.1985 at 6.a.m. so that they could go to the spot. There is still another infirmity in his evidence. He has stated that he did not know Pritpal Singh appellant and Manjit Singh, accused previously. No identification parade of the two had been arranged for this witness. His identification of the accused, for th first time, in Court is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant.

Mr. Mann has argued that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular testimony. It rather contradicts the same. Both Rachhpal Singh and Chet Ram PWs. have categorically stated that three shots were fired and they all hit Himmat Singh deceased. However, from the statement of Dr.Prbhjit Singh, it becomes crystalclear that only two shots were fired. Injury No. 1, which is a lacerated wound on the front of neck is the result of one shot. Injury No. 2 is the exit wound of Injury No. 1. The margins of the wounds under this injury were averted. Injuries No. 3 and 4 are circular wounds on the back of the right thigh. They are half a centimeter apart. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 both communicated with injury No. 5 which is the exit wound of injuries Nos. 3 and 4. The proximity of the two wounds is suggestive of the fact that they resulted from a single shot. The gun used was a single barrel one. Cartridges were fired from this gun, which have pellets in varying numbers. So, injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the result of the first shot alleged to have been fired by the assailant. The remaining injuries Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are blunt weapon injuries which have not resulted from gunshots. Therefore, only two shots were fired. If the witnesses were present at the spot, they would not have stated that three shots were fired. There is patent merit in the submission of Mr. Mann that injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have resulted from one shot; so have injuries Nos. 1 and 2 and injuries No. 6 7 and 8 have been caused by blunt weapon but not a firearm. There is no other injury present on the body of Himmat Singh deceased. So, in fact, only two shots were fired and not three. There is another discrepancy, Injury No. 8 on the dead body was a lacerated wound 13" x 1" on the outer aspect of right thigh. The witnesses do not explain this injury. It is fairly serious injury and, according to the doctor, it could have been caused with some heavy blunt weapon. It could not be caused by a mere fall. However, the witnesses do not reveal as to who had caused this injury.

For the foregoing reasons, we fell that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charges.