Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 28, 1993, rendered by Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, by which Rattan Singh, appellant, has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/, or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.

Briefly stated, the prosecution story is as under :

Swinder Singh acted as a mediator for the marriage of Raji, his sisterinlaw (wife''s sister), with Rattan Singh appellant. Relations between Rattan Singh and Swinder Singh were, however, strained prior to the marriage of the appellant with Raji, but with the intervention of the relations and respectables, the marriage of Rattan Singh appellant was solemnised.

On September 21, 1991, as narrated by Mohinder Singh brother of Swinder Singh, Mohinder Singh (PW) was present at Bus Stand, Jaura Chhatran, where he had gone to purchase household articles. At about 3.30 or 4.00 p.m. Swinder Singh met him as he had returned from Gurdaspur. Kulwant Singh asked Swinder Singh to accompany him. Thus, they left the Bus Stand together. When they had just reached in front of the shop of one Doctor, Rattan Singh appellant armed with a Datar immediately inflicted a Datar blow to Swinder Singh hitting on his neck. Swinder Singh fell down. Rattan Singh inflicted more Datar blows hitting Swinder Singh on his hands, feet, thighs and other parts of the body. Swinder Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Mohinder Singh, Kulwant Singh, Shangara Singh and Jagir Singh kept on raising alarm but the accused did not listen to them. After having inflicted 12/13 Datar blows on different parts of the body of Swinder Singh, Rattan Singh ran away carrying with him his Datar. Leaving behind Shangara Singh and Jagir Singh to guard the dead body, Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh left for the police station. They met Inspector Mohinder Singh near drain bridge, who recorded the statement of Mohinder Singh, Ex.P.F. Mohinder Singh had thumb marked the statement in token of its correctness. After making endorsement, Ex.PF/1, Inspector Mohinder Singh forwarded the same to Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, on the basis of which formal F.I.R., Ex. PF/2, was recorded by Vijay Kumar, Moharrir Head Constable. Inspector Mohinder Singh and other officials accompanied Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh to the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he prepared rough site plan, Ex.PG, lifted bloodstained earth and prepared inquest report, Ex.PE.

In order to establish the facts on the record, the prosecution relied on the testimony of P.W.1 Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, P.W.2 Constable Dilbagh Singh, P.W. 3 HC Vijay Kumar, P.W.4 Dr. Vipan Kumar, P.W.6 Mohinder Singh, P.W.7 Kulwant Singh and P.W.8 Inspector Mohinder Singh. The affidavits of HC Mohan Singh, Ex.PA, Constable Nirmal Singh, Ex.PW9/A, and Constable Surain Singh, ExPW9/A, were tendered in evidence. Jagir Singh, Shangara Singh, S.I. Swinder Singh and Constable Satwinder Singh were given up as unnecessary. Report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PN, and report of the Serologist, Ex.PO, were also tendered in evidence.

P.W.1 Janak Singh Dhanjal is a Draftsman, who prepared the scaled site plan, Ex. PB, with scale 1 inch equal to 20 feet.

P.W.2 Constable Dilbagh Singh was entrusted with the dead body of Swinder Singh for getting the postmortem examination done on September 21, 1991 and he after the postmortem examination had produced the clothes of the deceased before the Inspector and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB/1.

P W.3 HC Vijay Kumar was entrusted with parcels contained bloodstained earth and clothes of the deceased while he was working as MHC in Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur. The parcels were entrusted to him by Inspector Mohinder Singh on January 21, 1991. On February 25, 1991, both the sealed parcels were sent to the Chemical Examiner through Constable Surain Singh and Constable Surain Singh, after having delivered the parcels, handed over the receipt to him. The parcels bearing seals were not tampered with during the period they remained in his custody.

P.W.1 Dr. Vipan Kumar conducted autopsy on the dead body of Swinder Singh on January 22, 1991 and he found as many as 11 injuries thereon, which are as follows :

An incised wound measuring 17 cm x 5 cm on the upper aspect of left foot just below the ankle. On dissection, underlying bone, muscles and blood vessels were cut.

An incised wound measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the front aspect of left knee. The underlying muscles, blood vessels and bone (lower end of femur) were cut. Corresponding cut on Pyjama was found.

An incised wound measuring 13 cm x 4 cm on the upper and inner aspect of right foot. The injury was obliquely placed and underlying muscles, blood vessels and bone were cut.

An incised wound measuring 7 cm x 2 cm. on the front and inner aspect of right thigh, 3 cm above the knee. Underlying muscles, blood vessels were cut. A corresponding cut was present on the Pyjama.

An incised wound measuring 7 cm x 2.5 cm on the right thigh, parallel to and 1.5 cm above injury No. 4. Underlying muscles, blood vessels and a bone were cut. A corresponding cut was present on the Pyjama.

An incised wound measuring 7 cm x 2 cm on the back and outer aspect of left forearm, 7 cm above the wrist. The injury was transversely placed and the underlying muscles, blood vessels and bones (radius and ulna both) were cut. Corresponding cut on the shirt was found present.

An incised wound measuring 7 cm x 2 cm extending over the posterior aspect of right hand involving the proximal phalanges of little, ring and middle fingers. Underlying muscles, tendons, blood vessels and bone were cut.

A superficial incised wound measuring 8 cm x 0.5 cm on the front and outer aspect of right forearm, 10 cm above the wrist. A corresponding cut was present on the shirt.

An incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm on the front aspect of right side of the chest 8 cm below and lateral to the right nipple. Underlying muscles and blood vessels were cut. A corresponding cut was present on the shirt and banian.

An incised wound measuring 25 cm x 15 cm present on the left side of the face and neck involving left eye, left cheek, left maxillary region, left side of lower jaw and upper outer aspect of neck on the left side. On dissection, the underlying structure, i.e. upper orbital margin, lower orbital margin, maxillary bone, left side mandible, left common carotid artery, jugular veins, muscles of the neck and face were cut. Contents of the left eye had leaked out from the left orbital cavity. The left side of the upper and lower Jaws were cut and teeth were also cut. Liquid blood was found to be present all over in the vicinity of the injury.

An incised wound measuring 10 cm x 3 cm overlying the right frontal parietal and occipital regions of the skull was present. Injury was obliquely placed and was curved with its convexity towards the right side. On dissection, the skin, subcutaneous tissue, loose aerolar tissue periostezum were cut. The underlying bone was also cut. There was an extra dural haematoma present in the vicinity of the injury. The dura arachnoid matter, piamater and brain matter were also cut. There was subdural haematoma present in the corresponding area.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was injury to the vital organ, i.e., brain, and haemorrhage and shock, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex.PC. is the carboncopy of the postmortem report. He had conducted postmortem on the police request, Ex.PD. The inquest report Ex.PE and ruqa Ex.PF were also received from the Investigating Officer through the constable. When crossexamined the doctor stated that the dead body and papers were received at 10 A.M. and that there was no corresponding cut on the turban and Loi.

Narrating the sequence of events leading to the death of Swinder Singh, Mohinder Singh (P.W.6) told the police as also before the trial Court that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries to Swinder Singh with the Datar in the broad day light in the area of Bus Stand Jaura Chhatran, where he was present as he had gone to make purchases. Swinder Singh, who had gone to Gurdaspur, also returned from there. Kulwant Singh, an acquaintance, asked Swinder Singh to accompany him and when they had left the bus stand, Swinder Singh was immediately attacked by the accused with a Datar. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohinder Singh PW as well as by Kulwant Singh, Shangara Singh and Jagir Singh. Out of the remaining eyewitnesses, the prosecution has examined Kulwant Singh. He has also narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place as summarised above.

Inspector Mohinder Singh (P.W.8), besides proving the memo vide which the sealed parcel containing the bloodstained earth lifted from the spot was taken into possession, has also stated that he had prepared rough site plan, Ex.PG, depicting the place of occurrence and that on January 22, 1991 Constable Dilbagh Singh had produced before him the clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PB/1 attested by Dilbagh Singh. Inspector Mohinder Singh has further stated that on January 26, 1991, Rattan Singh accused was arrested and during the course of (sic) interrogation he suffered a disclosure statement in the presence of SI Swinder Singh and Constable Satwinder Singh that he had kept concealed a Datar in the heap of Parali at his Behak and offered to get it recovered vide his disclosure statement, Ex.PJ, attested by SI Swinder Singh and Constable Satwinder Singh. The accused had also signed underneath the statement. The accused in pursuance of the disclosure statement led the police party to the stated place and got produced Datar, Ex.P.1, which was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex.PK attested by the witnesses. Ex.PL is the rough site plan depicting the place of recovery wherefrom the Datar was produced. The Datar was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable on the same day.

The substance of the accusations was put to the accused and his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, was recorded. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication in this case. No specific defence plea was taken up by the accused nor he led any defence evidence.

Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, has assailed the prosecution evidence on the grounds that Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh PWs are chance witnesses and their evidence is to be viewed with suspicion; that the time of occurrence is not mentioned in the inquest report; that the articles found lying near the dead body are also not mentioned in the inquest report; that the investigation is tainted and that no independent witness of the locality has been examined especially when the occurrence had allegedly taken place at the busstand in broadday light. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it was an act of militants as at about 12 noon Mohinder Singh had received a message that the dead body of Swinder Singh wrapped in a Loi had been thrown at the busstand by three extremists, who had come in a Matador raising slogans that whosoever acts an informer of the police, he would face the same consequences. Except a bald suggestion to Mohinder Singh, there is nothing on record to suggest that Mohinder Singh had received any such message.

Now dealing with the line of argument that Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, PWs, were chance witnesses, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1976 SCC (Cri.) 461, wherein the apex Court has held as under :

"If by coincidence or chance a person happened to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused, then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautious and close scrutiny."

The evidence of Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, who are eyewitnesses, cannot be brushed aside simply by terming them as chance witnesses. Their evidence is consistent, trustworthy and straightforward and they have stood the test of crossexamination.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that there was delay in sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. The occurrence in this case took place on January 21, 1991 at 4.00 p.m. Mohinder Singh, first informant, got his statement recorded before Inspector Mohinder Singh (P.W.8) at drain bridge on the same day at 5.00 p.m. and the formal F.I.R. was completed at 5.55 p.m. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same day at 8.00 p.m. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. and sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that Jagir Singh and Shangara Singh, Sarpanch, who are eyewitnesses, have not been examined by the prosecution in the trial Court. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining these witnesses, because the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State had given up these witnesses on October 3, 1991 as having been won over by the accused. When all the circumstances vouched by Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh PWs unerringly and irresistibly lead to the conclusion that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased, then nonproduction of Jagir Singh and Shangara Singh loses its significance and in this regard reliance has been placed by the State counsel on the judgment of the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 Cri.L.J. 9 (SC). It is also well settled that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Thus, the statements of Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, PWs, being of consistent nature require to be accepted.

Certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant by way of referring to the crossexamination of Mohinder Singh, Kulwant Singh and Inspector Mohinder Singh, PWs. For instance, Mohinder Singh (P.W.6) has stated that Swinder Singh, on account of injury on his right foot, was unable to put on his shoes and that he had bandaged his foot. Adverting to the statement of Inspector Mohinder Singh (P.W.8), he has stated that he had not removed the bandage from the foot of the deceased because it was not at all bandaged and at that time a pair of shoes, turban and Loi of the deceased were also lying near the dead body. Certain discrepancies here and there are bound to occur in criminal cases and no criminal is free from minor discrepancies. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to the insignificant aspects thereof. In this case the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are minor. The prosecution witnesses are consistent as to the substance of the case that Datar blows were given to the deceased by the appellant in their presence.

Similarly, on the point of motive, it is not a sine qua non for the success of the prosecution case that the motive must be proved. It has been held in Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and another v. State of Kerala, 1981 Cri.L.J. 743, that so long as the other evidence remains convincing and it is not open to reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based on it.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Investigating Officer during his crossexamination had admitted to be correct that in Column No. 3 of the inquest proceedings, Ex.PE, the time had not been recorded and blank space had been left. He has further submitted that the Investigating Officer also admitted to be correct that in Column No. 7 of the inquest proceedings, Ex.PE, it was not specifically mentioned that the turban and Loi were lying near the dead body. Nonmention of time and the articles in the inquest report, in our opinion, would not be fatal to the prosecution case.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that in case the appellant had any intention to kill Swinder Singh, he could easily do so by visiting his behak or residential house, which is situated in the fields, instead of killing him in the broadday light. We do not find any force in this argument of the learned counsel. No body can foresee what is going on in the mind of a culprit nor any hard and fast rule can be laid down that a particular offence would take place in a particular manner and at a particular place. Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh, PWs, are not inimically disposed towards the appellant. There is no reason as to why they would falsely implicate the appellant in this case, more particularly when Mohinder Singh PW is closely related to the appellant as the appellant''s wife is the real sister of the wife of his deceased brother Swinder Singh. Thus, assessing the case of the prosecution from every possible angle, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.