Rulda Singh and another vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Whereas the co-accused of the appellants were acquitted of the murder charge framed against them, the appellants Rulda Singh and his son Balwinder Singh have been held guilty of an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 8-6-1995. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

The prosecution case was unfolded by Amarjit Singh PW-3 who while making his statement before ASI Jagtar Chand stated that he was resident of village Pabra and was working as a labourer. He had a dispute of shamlat land with appellant Rulda Singh, Raj Singh, Manoj Kumar alias Moni as also Balwinder Singh son of Rulda Singh. A compromise was, however, arrived at between them. On the eventful day on 15-9-1991 at about 5.00 p.m. he along with his brother Jarnail Singh was going to their village Pabra after purchasing domestic articles from Rajpura. His brother Jarnail Singh was going a little ahead of him. When his brother Jarnail Singh reached near the house of Rulda Singh, appellant then later raised a Lalkara that they would not allow him to go alive that day. In the meantime, Rulda Singh armed with stick, Balwinder Singh armed with Lathi, Raj Singh and Manoj Kumar alias Moni reached the spot and asked him that they would get the possession of the shamlat land delivered that day. In the meantime, Rulda Singh gave a lathi blow to his brother Jarnail Singh which hit him in the middle of his head. Balwinder Singh then gave a lathi blow to his brother Jarnail Singh which hit him on the right temple. Due to sustaining of these injuries, his brother fell down on the road. Raj Singh and Manoj Kumar alias Moni also gave kick and fist blows to him while he was lying on the ground. He out of fear did not step forward and raised the alarm Marta Marta (killed, killed), as a result of which Harbans Singh son of Jagat Singh resident of the village reached the spot. Appellants Rulda Singh and Balwinder Singh along with their sticks, their co-accused Raj Singh and Manoj Kumar ran away from the spot. He and Harbans Singh removed his brother Jarnail Singh to A. P. Jain Civil Hospital, Rajital, Rajpura for treatment by putting him in a trolley. After dressing the wound of Jarnail Singh, doctor advised him to take Jarnail Singh to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Then they took Jarnail Singh to Rajindera Hospital and admitted him for treatment but he died there on 16-9-1991. The cause of grudge as stated by him was that they had a dispute of shamlat land with Rulda Singh''s party.

The facts reveal that occurrence leading to the death of Jarnail Singh took place at 5.00 p.m. on 15-9-1991 at village Parba said to be 7 kms. away from Police Station Saddar Rajpura. The FIR on the statement of Amarjit Singh which was recorded at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala came into being at 8.45 a.m. on 16-9-1991. The special report with regard to the incident reached the Magistrate concerned at 2.15 p.m. on the same day stated to be half a km. from the Police Station. Patiala is at a distance of 18 kms. from Rajpura.

In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants and their co-accused, the prosecution examined Dr. O. P. Aggarwal, Assistant Professor Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Patiala as PW 1. He stated that on 16-9-1991 at 11.00 a.m. he had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Jarnail Singh. The dead body was brought by Balwant Singh, Head Constable and was identified by Piara Singh and Gian Chand. The doctor found following two injuries on the dead body of Jarnail Singh :-

"1. Stitched lacerated wound 6 cm on the head on the mid line. On dissection underneath bone was fractured. Blood was present in the skull cavity. Brain was damaged.

There was swelling 4 cm x 5 cm on the right side of head just above right ear. The bone fractured.

In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to head injuries. Both the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death and were caused with blun weapon. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was about 12 hours and the post-mortem was conducted within 12 hours after death. He further stated that he had performed post-mortem examination on the police request Ex. PB. He also stated that injuries on the head of Jarnail Singh could be the result of blows with dang, Exs. P-1 and P-2 shown to him. In his cross-examination he stated that the police papers were received by him at about 10.30 a.m. on 16-9-1991. He had initialled all the police papers produced before him at the time of post-mortem examination. He was shown the statement of Amarjit Singh marked X in the Court and after seeing it he stated that it was not initialled by him. He could not say that the said statement of Amarjit Singh was not included in the police papers produced before him. He further stated that request of post-mortem Ex. PB did not bear the name of the first informant or the names of the accused. Dr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Medical Officer, A. P. Jain, Hospital, Rajpura who appeared as P.W. 2 stated that Jain, Hospital, Rajpura who appeared as PW-2 stated that at about 6.45 p.m. on 15-9-1991 he had medically examined Jarnail Singh and found the following injuries on his person :-

"1. A lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 1/2 cm in the parietal region mid-line, fresh bleeding present. X-ray was advised and the injury was kept under observation for surgeon''s opinion.

Boggy swelling 4 cm x 3 cm in right temporal region just above right car, x-ray was advised and injury was kept under observation for surgeon''s opinion.

Both the injuries were kept under observation. The probable duration of injuries was within 6 hours and the kind of weapon used was blunt for both the injuries. The injured was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. The information to the police was sent vide slip Ex. PE. In his cross-examination he stated that injured was brought to the hospital by Gurmel Singh who was recorded as cousin brother of the injured. The injured was not admitted in the hospital and, thus, no bed head ticket was prepared. The injured remained in the hospital for about half an hour. The possibility of injury No. 2 having been caused by a fall could not be ruled out. The same was his opinion with regard to injury No. 1.

Amarjit Singh the first informant who appeared as PW-3, fully supported the prosecution version. He further stated in his examination-in-chief that he and Harbans Singh had removed Jarnail Singh to, A. P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura in a tractor trolley and that his statement was recorded by the police in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. In his cross-examination he stated that Harbans Singh had also witnessed the occurrence. His attention was drawn to his statement Ex. PF wherein it was only recorded that Harbans Singh came to the spot on his alarm. He further stated that he had purchased sugar, tea leaves and vegetable from Rajpura which he was carrying. Jarnail Singh was carrying tea-leaves, gur and utensils which he had purchased. He was carrying steel bowls and glass tumblers. They had left the village at 10/11 a.m. for Rajpura. They had not taken meals before leaving Rajpura. He and Jarnail Singh were on separate cycles. He was ten Karams Jarnail Singh when he was way laid by the appellants and their co-accused. He further stated that Jarnail Singh fell on the metalled portion of the road on receiving two injuries. That portion is brick paved and not metalled. Articles which he was carrying fell on the ground when he fell on receipt of injuries. He did not notice if glass tumblers had broken when they fell on the ground. He did not notice that the steel bowls had scattered on the spot. Jarnail Singh was removed to the hospital about half an hour after the actual occurrence. He did not send any messenger to their house to inform the family members. However, Gurmel Singh, Piara Ram and Gian Chand came at the spot on their own about 10-15 minutes after the occurrence. The cycle and the articles which Jarnail Singh was carrying were left on the spot when he was removed to the hospital but he did not know what happened to those articles. They did not leave anybody on the spot to secure the place of occurrence but somebody of his own covered the blood on the spot with a basket. The cycle, shoes and other articles were not on the spot when he and the police party reached the spot on the following day. They reached the hospital at Rajpura at about 6.00 p.m. and stayed there for about half an hour. They reached Rajindera Hospital, Patiala at about 9 p.m. Jarnail Singh died at 3.00 a.m. No report was lodged with the police by them before reaching the hospital at Rajpura. The police met him for the first time at 6.00 a.m. on 16-9-1991 in the Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. The police prepared inquest report in his presence and also obtained his signatures thereon in Punjabi. His signatures on the inquest report were obtained at about 7/7.30 a.m. Harbans Singh PW was not present when the inquest report was prepared. The statement of Harbans Singh was not recorded by the police in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he and Harbans Singh were not present in the hospital at the time of preparation of inquest report and therefore, their attestation was not there on the inquest report. He further denied the suggestion that Jarnail Singh was not got admitted in the hospital at Rajpura by him and Harbans Singh. He further stated that they reached the place of occurrence at about 11.00/11.15 a.m. and stayed there for about three hours. His statement was not recorded by the police at the place of occurrence but his signatures were obtained along with the thumb impression of Harbans Singh on the documents at the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that his signatures on the statement Ex. PF were obtained by the police at 1.30 p.m. on 16-9-1991 at the place of occurrence. He further stated that he had compromised with the appellants regarding dispute over the shamlat land. He however, denied that the appellants had no grouse against them. He denied the suggestion that he came to know of Jarnail Singh having sustained injuries as a result of fall on 16-9-1991 and thereafter in connivance with the police entire story was concocted at 1.00 p.m. Harbans Singh who appeared as PW 4 fully corroborated PW 3 Amarjit Singh. He also stated that police came to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala at about 6.00 a.m. on 16-9-1991 and the statement of Amarjit Singh was recorded by the police in hospital. So far as his statement was concerned, the same was recorded by the police on the spot on 16-9-1991. In his cross-examination he stated that Jarnail Singh was carrying sugar and ghee which he had purchased. He was not carrying anything else. Ghee was in a plastic bag. He noticed the sugar grains scattered on the spot but he did not know if these were in a plastic bag when he was carrying the same. Ghee was intact in plastic bag when he left for the hospital. The cycle, chappals or the ghee were not at the spot when they came there with the police. Sugar grains were also not available there at that time. They reached the place of occurrence with the police at 11.00 a.m. on 16-9-1991 and the police remained there for about 3-3-1/2 hours. He accompanied the police party from Patiala to the place of occurrence. ASI Balwant Singh PW 5, H. C. Madan Singh PW 6, HC Major Singh PW 8, Constable Gurjit Singh PW 9 tendered into evidence their affidavits Exs. PH, PW 1, PK and PL respectively. Amrit Lal Draftsman who appeared as PW 7 stated that he had prepared the site plan Ex. PJ after reaching the spot at the pointing out of Amarjit Singh son of Hazura Singh. Jagtar Chand Sub Inspector Police Line, Sangrur who appeared as PW 10 deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on 16-9-1991 in the morning he went to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and came to know that Jarnail Singh injured succumbed to his injuries. Brother of Jurnail Singh deceased met him there. He recorded his statement EX. PF. After recording of the formal F.I.R. he had gone to the spot and prepared inquest report EX. PC. Earlier the case was registered u/s 304 read with Section 134, IPC but later on the offence was converted u/s 302 read with Section 34, IPC. In his cross-examination he stated that he had received Ruqa Ex. PE at about 9.30 p.m. ASI Amarjit Singh was working as SHO at the time of his departure on that day. Ruqa was received vide DDR No. 33 at 9.30 p.m. After making his departure form police station at 9.30 p.m. on 15-9-1991 he returned to the police station on 16-9-1991 at 8.30 p.m. He admitted that FIR in this case started at 8.45 and was completed, at 9.30 a.m. on 16-9-1991. He also admitted that names of PWs and weapons of offence and place of occurrence is not mentioned in any of the DDRs. He also admitted that police stations were provided with Gypsy, motorcycles and Allwyn Nissans etc. After he came to know that injured has been referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, he had not proceeded during night. He did not report the matter in the police station regarding non-availability of any vehicle. He reached Patiala at 6.30 a.m. on next day on 16-9-1991. There is a column in the inquest report in which summary of the case was to be recorded. Summary of the case was recorded by him Mark X to XI in EX. PC. He admitted that there was no name of witnesses, place of occurrence nor the weapon of offence and names of accused is mentioned except that statement of Amarjit Singh was recorded. Summary of the cases was not recorded in it. He denied the suggestion that when he prepared inquest reports, names of PWs, place of occurrence, weapons of offence and names of accused were not known to him. He admitted that inquest report had not been signed by him nor by Harbans Singh. ASI Baljit Singh who appeared as PW 11 deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken while investigating the case.

When examined u/s 313, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Rulda Singh while denying the incriminating material put to him further stated that he was innocent. He had been falsely implicated in the case due to party faction in the village. Deceased received injuries by all and he had been falsely involved at the instance of Walati Ram Sarpanch, who is inimical towards them. Deceased Jarnail Singh belonged to the party of Walati Ram Sarpanch. Other appellant simply adopted the statement of Rulda Singh. The appellants in their defence examined DW 1 Shri Atula Sighla, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert who stated that he had examined the writings of inquest report Ex. PC including summary of the case marked as Q 1 and compared the same with writings of application for conducting post mortem marked as S-I, statement of Chand dated 16-9-1991 marked as S/2, statement of Piara Ram dated 16-9-1991 marked as S. 3 and statement of Amarjit Singh marked as Section 4. He was of the opinion that writing of inquest report marked as Q 1 had not been written by the person whose writings are marked as Section 1 to Section 4. In his cross-examination he admitted that science of handwriting comparison was not perfect. He did not try to determine the age of ink used in disputed writing and the standard writing. He admitted that different handwriting experts can give different opinions regarding the writings and there can occur some variations in the writings of the same person due to the writing posture of the writer and the speed of writing but such variations are always superficial in nature. He denied the suggestion that the distinction in Gurmukhi was due to the fact that at one stage the same writing was made in a hurry.

We have heard Mr. R. S. Ghai, the learned Senior Advocate who appears in support of this appeal and Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Deputy Advocate General who represents the State and with their assistants, we have gone through the records of the case.

Before we might dwell on the points canvassed in support of this appeal by Mr. R. S. Ghai, we think it necessary to mention that so far as two eye-witnesses, namely PW 3 Amarjit Singh and Harbans Singh PW 4 are concerned, they have fully supported the prosecution version. No dent at all could be made in their sworn statements from the lengthy cross-examination adverted to them. Point for consideration in the context of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is as to whether these two witnesses were at all present at the scene of occurrence or they are made up witnesses and had actually not witnessed the occurrence. Despite the fact that these two witnesses have fully supported the prospective version and their credibility could not be shaken in cross-examination, if still a finding can be returned that these two witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence, then the present appeal has to result in acquittal. The time is, thus, now ripe to deal with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel endeavouring to show that these two are made up witnesses. By making a reference to the statements of PW 1 and PW 2, namely Dr. O. P. Aggarwal and Dr. Anil Kumar Gulati, the Counsel contends that neither Amarjit Singh nor Harbans Singh had accompanied the injured to the hospital at either Rajpura or Patiala. In so far as Dr. O. P. Aggarwal PW 1 is concerned, he stated in his cross-examination that he had initialled all the police papers produced at the time of post-mortem examination. The doctor was shown the statement of Amarjit Singh marked X and after seeing it he stated that it was not initialled by him. The doctor further was not in a position to state that if the said statement was included in the police papers aforesaid. Dr. Anil Kumar Gulati in his cross-examination stated that injured was brought to the hospital by Gurmel Singh. From the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel, we are, however, of the opinion that this material is not sufficient to discard the presence of these two witnesses at the place of occurrence. Dr. O. P. Aggarwal Assistant Professor Forensic Medicines had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Jarnail Singh on 16-9-1991 at 11.00 a.m. It is neither the case of the prosecution or the defence that the same doctor had examined Jarnail Singh when he was brought in the hospital at Patiala. It is not the prosecution case either that the two eye-witnesses remained in the hospital till such time post-mortem of Jarnail Singh was conducted by Dr. O. P. Aggarwal. The mere fact that as per the statement made by the doctor, the statement of Amarjit Singh was not sent with the inquest report and he could not say whether the said statement which was produced before him was or was not included in the said papers, it cannot be said that these two witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence. In so far as the Investigating Officer is concerned, he denied the suggestion that the statement of Amarjit Singh was not sent along with the inquest report. As mentioned above, the doctor was not in a position to state as to whether the statement of Amarjit Singh was included in the papers or not. The mere fact that the said statement has not been initialled by the doctor is not conclusive of the fact that the same was not sent along with the police papers. In any case, as mentioned above, mere fact that the doctor did not initial the inquest report does not lead to the conclusion that Amarjit Singh and Harbans Singh were not present at the scene of occurrence. So far as statement of Dr. Anil Kumar Gulati is concerned, no doubt it is true that he had stated that injured was brought to the hospital by Gurmel Singh but then the said statement cannot be read in isolation and the other evidence that was brought on record has also to be seen. It may be recalled that Amarjit Singh in his cross-examination stated that Gurmel Singh, Piara Ram and Gian Chand had come at the spot 10-15 minutes after the occurrence, Gurmel Singh thus, arrived at the scene of occurrence and it is possible that in the records only name of Gurmel Singh has been mentioned who brought Jarnail Singh in the A. P. Hospital. Rajpura. Amarjit Singh no doubt also says that the injured was removed to A. P. Jain Hospital, by him and Harbans Singh but this small lapse on the part of the prosecution in our view cannot be fatal. It is proved on the records of the case that the statement of Amarjit Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the hospital at Patiala at 7.00 a.m. on 16-9-1991 and the formal FIR also came into being at 8.45 a.m. It is not possible to believe that Amarjit Singh went to the hospital after the occurrence was over as also Jarnail Singh was admitted in the hospital at Patiala and he had been called from his house to give detailed version of the incident leading to the death of Jarnail Singh. It is proved on that records of the case that the Investigating Officer after coming to know from Rajpura that Jarnail Singh had been shifted to Patiala did not visit Patiala at night. It is further proved on the records that he went at Patiala to know about the condition of the injured in the morning of 16-9-1991. The police had, thus, not come into contact with the complainant party till such time the statement of Amarjit Singh was recorded. There was no occasion for Amarjit Singh to have coined a story with all its details at 7 a.m. in the morning on 16-9-1991. It needs to be highlighted that even though Amarjit Singh is closely related to the deceased but as far as Harbans Singh PW 4 is concerned, he is absolutely an independent person and his statement cannot be so easily discarded. We, thus, find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel that Amarjit Singh PW 3 and Harbans Singh PW 4 were not present at the scene of occurrence and were later made to depose in tune with the prosecution version. The learned Counsel, however, further submits that there is no record available which might authenticate that Amarjit Singh PW 3 and Harbans Singh PW 4 were accompanying the injured either at Rajpura or at Patiala and further the fact that in the inquest report there is no mention in columns No. 4, 5 and 12 of weapon used, nature of injury etc. would further suggest that these two witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel either. In a given case it is possible that there may be record available to show the presence of eye-witnesses with the injured at the time of admission in the hospital but it is not necessary that such a record should be available failing which presence of such a witness or the fact that he had taken the injured to the hospital has to be disbelieved. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel based on Columns 4, 5 and 12 of the inquest report is concerned, column 4 is with regard to name, parentage and residence of two or more persons who identify the dead body as that of the deceased person. Against the column aforesaid names of Piara Ram and Gian Chand are mentioned. Column 5 pertains to name, parentage, caste, residence and condition in life of the deceased and column 12 is with regard to manner or by what weapon or instrument marks of injuries or any marks of injuries or violence appear to have been caused. Against column No. 5, name of the deceased with parentage has been mentioned and against column No. 12, there is a mention of the words, "Due to sustaining injuries." We fail to understand as to how the columns in inquest report referred to above and the entries filled against the said columns would show non presence of Amarjit Singh PW 3 and Harbans Singh PW 4 at the place of occurrence. It is then submitted by the learned Counsel that in the inquest report, names of the assailants were not shown. It may be mentioned that in view of the fact that there is no column about the names of the assailants in the inquest report, there is no occasion for any one to mention the names of the assailants. Non-mention of the names of the assailants in inquest report cannot be fatal it was so held in Ram Sanjiwan Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . It is significant to mention here that inquest report consists of 4 pages. The inquest report is a printed pro forma. On the reverse of page 3 at page 4, brief facts of the case inclusive of the fact that the statement of Amarjit Singh was recorded at hospital at Patiala have also been mentioned. The very fact that on page 4 of the inquest report, the factum of recording of statement of Amarjit Singh is mentioned, it authenticates the fact that by the time inquest report was prepared the statement of Amarjit Singh had since already been recorded. If that be so, it lends assurance to the statement of the Investigating Officer that copy of the statement of Amarjit Singh was appended with the inquest report when the same was sent to the doctor for post mortem examination.

Mr. Ghai then contends that evidence with regard to articles carried by the deceased and Amarjit Singh PW 3 is discrepant as would be clear from the statement made by these witnesses as also from the fact that such domestic articles which were scattered at the place of occurrence were not found there when the police reached there. There are minor discrepancies with regard to the domestic articles carried by the deceased and Amarjit Singh PW 3 but that, in our view, is not enough to discard the prosecution version. In so far as non recovery of such scattered articles is concerned, it is possible that the same were removed before the police arrived. There was significant time lag between the occurrence and the time when the police arrived at the scene of occurrence.

The last contention of the learned Counsel is that there is delay in lodging the FIR. It may be recalled that even though occurrence had taken place at 5.00 p.m. on 15-9-1991, the statement of Amarjit Singh came to be recorded at 7.00 a.m. on the next morning and the formal FIR came into being al 8.45 a.m. on the same day. No doubt, there is some delay in lodging the FIR but in the present case, it is the Investigating Officer who is to be blamed for causing delay. It is well made out from the reading of evidence in this case that even though the doctor at Rajpura had sent a message to the police with regard to the injuries received by Jarnail Singh, the concerned police officer after enquiring from doctor at Rajpura that the injured had been shifted to Patiala, bothered to go to Patiala only by next morning. Careless conduct of the police officer not, thus, visiting Patiala even after coming to know that the injured had been shifted there, cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. In any case, the delay in this case cannot be attributed to the complainant who might have utilised this delay in coining a story to pin down the appellants. In so far as shamlat land dispute having been compromised and therefore, the appellants having no grudge against complainant party is concerned, suffice it say that if there was no dispute still simmering after the compromise and therefore, there was no motive which might have actuated the appellants to commit the crime alleged against them, there was no reason for the complainant to involve the appellants as well. Surely, they were more inclined to bring culprits to the book than to let them go scot-free and to involve the appellants. Further, when direct evidence which inspires confidence is forthcoming, motive pales into insignificance.

We have considered this matter from all angles and in our considered view, the learned trial Judge was absolutely right in returning a finding of guilt against the present appellants. Upholding the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge against the appellants, we dismiss this appeal being devoid of any merit.

Appeal dismissed.