Santokh Singh vs The State

C.G. Suri, J.—Santokh Singh Appellant aged about 32 years of village barwala has been convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code by a judgment dated 9th September, 1969, of the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, and has been sentenced to death for the murder of Harnam Singh of his village. Appeal No. 1075 of 1969 hled by Santokh Singh against his conviction and sentence and the reference (No. 75 of 1969) for confirmation of the sentence of death u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were heard by us together and s-1 (sic) all be disposed by this judgment

The prosecution story as given by Sardara Singh PW, who first reported the incident to the police is that on 3rd January, 1969, at about 7 P. M. he was returning from the house of Dara Singh who is his part-ner in cultivation. He saw Harnam Singh deceased and a few other persons namely bhan Singh, Waryam Singh, Dial Singh Ajaib Singh, Bal Singh and Gurmej Singh etc. misbehaving and shouting under the influence of liquor in front of the haveli of Parsa Singh, The Appellant''s brother Gurmej Singh and Dial Singh had tried to bring about a com-promise over the payment of some debt by Gurmel Singh and Karnail Singh to Parsa Singh a few days earlier but this settlement had not been honoured by Parsa Singh. While this raula was going on in front of the haveli of Parsa Singh, the Appellant came there armed with a licenced gun of his brother Gurmej Singh and challenged the miscreants as to who they were. The deceased replied that he was his uncle Harnam Singh. The Appellant thereupon fired two or three shots in quick succession (heth utte). One of these shots fatally injured Harnam Singh while P. Ws. Dhan Singh. Dial Singh and Lakhbir Singh sustained gun shot injuries from the other fire. Harnam Singh died at the spot. Sardara Singh P. W. who is a Member of the Gram Panchayat went with the injured Dial Singh to Police Station, Patti, which is about six miles away. Sardara Singh lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit. PJ, at the Police Station at about 8.30 P. M. the same evening. Dial Singh was medically examined on police request at Patti by Dr. Ram Parkash P. W. at 9.20 P. M. the same night.

Sub-Inspector Shadi Lal P.W. who recorded the First Information Report, Exhibit P. J., also recorded the statement of P. W. Dial Singh and prepared his injury statement, Exhibit P. G. He reached the spot the same night and prepared the inquest report, Exhibit P. C He prepared the injury statement of P. W. Bhan Singh and took bloodstained earth into possession from the scene of occurrence. He then prepared the rough site plan Exhibit P. O. and arranged to send the dead body of Harnam Singh for post-mortem examination. He took into possession the licensed gun, Exhibit P. l, from the Appellant''s brother Gurmej Singh on 25th February, 1969. The Appellant could not be arrested before 17th February, 1969 even though a search had been made for him at different places but he was not available.

The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Harnam Singh was carried out at the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran at 8.25 A.M. on 5th January, 1969. The dead body had been received the previous evening at about 3.45 P.M. There were more than a dozen gun shot injuries on the dead body and two of these injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There was no tatooing of the wounds or the clothes. The stomach contained 8 to 10 ounces of semi digested food containing pieces of pakauras and smell of alcohol was coming out of the contents. The death in the doctor''s opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury in the right lung and right neck vessel The gun shot injuries were found all over the chest, face and head. Samples of blood from the heart and urine from the bladder were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and test but the report, Exhibit PA, which was received was to the effect that no alcohol was to be found in the contents of these exhibits.

P Ws Bhan Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were medically examined by Dr. Ram Parkash at Patti on the forenoon of 4th January, 1969. Both had simple gun shot injuries and the duration of these injuries coincided with the time of the occurrence.

P Ws Sardara Singh and Dalip Singh have been examined by the prosecution at the trial. Hazara Singh brother of PW Sardara Singh had been challaned alongwith some others for the murder of one Gurmez Singh brother of Ricakan Singh about 14-15 years ago as may appear from the copy of the judgment, Exhibit DC, but the witness pleads ignorance of the fact because he was in Singapore in those days There is hardly any reason why Sardara Singh would have lodged a false report against the Appellant within such a short time. This witness finds support from Dalip Singh PW who may appear equally disinterested. A belated complaint with regard to these fatal injuries to Harnam Singh was filed by the Appellant''s party-man Dial Singh against Parsa Singh and his son and the three injured P Ws have been cited as prosecution witnesses in that case. That complaint had not been filed for 3 or 4 weeks after the occurrerce. The injured P Ws had to be given up by the prosecution in this case as having been won over. All that can he said therefore is that the offences had been committed by Santokh Singh Appellant in a state of intoxication and the persons injured who belong-t d to the Appellant''s party are not trying to take a very serious view of the whole matter. The report made to the police about this incident was so prompt and spontaneous that the direct evidence examined at the trial inspires full confidence. One of the injured P Ws Dial Singh had also accompanied Sardara Sirgh Panch to the Police Station and had been medically examined within about a couple of hours by a doctor at Patti which is at a distance of 6 miles from the spot. The deceased was also a partyman of the Appellant and the unfortunate incident may appear to have occurred during a drunken brawl. Coupled with this evidence is the circumstance that the appellent had remained absconding for about three weeks after the occurrence. The complaint about the counter version about the murder having been committed by Parsa Singh or his son was filed after the Appellant''s arrest in this case. There was no suggestion made to the Station House Officer that any such counter version had been given immediately after the commencement of the investigation.

It was argued by Shri Kaushal, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the case had originally been registered u/s 304 Indian Penal Code and that this had been done to avoid the sending of the special report to the Haqa Magistrate and that there have been some manipulations of the time at which the First Information Report is shown to have been recorded. Dial Singh PW had been medically examined at Patti without any delay and there could not possibly be any manipulations of time in the recording of the First Informotion Report. The reason for registering the case u/s 304 was that the deceased had given offence to the Appellant by describing himself as the Appellant''s chacha. There is no proof on record that there was any such blood relationship between the two and the word chacha appears to have been used by the deceased as a term of offence towards the Appellant. The question however would be whether the use of this offensive term by the deceased could be taken to amount to such a grave and sudden provocation to the Appellant so as to bring his offence within Exception 1 to the definition of murder and to reduce it to culpable homicide simpliciter.

Some rulings have been cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in this connection. In Girdhari Lal v. The Crown (l940) 42 P. L. R. 45 the deceased had described himself as the paramour of the accused''s sister and this was taken to be grave and sudden provocation to bring the case within exception I to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The relations in the past between the accused and the deceased had however been such that the accused had asked the deceased to remain out of his sight as he could not even bear to see his face. With such exacerbated feelings the deceased had been indiscreet enough to suggest that he was carrying on with the Appellant''s sister. Under these circumstances the deceased was said to have given such grave and sudden provocation as to reduce the offence of killing to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In oar case the deceased was a party-man of the Appellant and there had been no ill feelings in the past to make things simmer up to that pitch where the fact that the deceased had described himself as the Appellant''s uncle should have provoked him to commit this serious crime or to have justified his flying into such a transport of passion. In the present case the over-sensitiveness of the Appellant had been brought on by his self-induced state of intoxication.

We have then been referred to the Supreme Court ruling in K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra A I R 1962 S. C 605, wherein it was observed as follows:-

On the other had, in India, the first principle has never been followed. That principle has had its origin in the English doctrine that mere words and gestures would not be in point of law sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter. But the authors of the Indian Penal Code did not accept the distinction. They observed:

It is an indisputable fact, that gross insults by word or gesture have as great a tendency to move many persons to violent passion as dangerous or painful bodily injuries; nor does it appear to us that passion excited by insult is entitled to less indulgence than passion excited by pain. On the contrary, the circumstance that a man resents an insult more than a wound is anything but a proof that he is a man of peculiarly bad heart.

Indian courts have not maintained the distinction between words and acts in the application of the doctrine of provocation in a given case. The Indian law on the subject may be considered from two aspects, namely (1) whether words or gestures unaccompanied by acts can amount to provocation, and (2) what is the effect of the time lag between the act of provocation and the commission of the offence.

The Hon''ble Judges then went on to reproduce with approval the following observations of the Madras High Court in Empress v. Khogayi, I L. R 2 Mad. 12.

What is required is that it should be of a character to deprive the offender of his self-control. In determining whether it was so, it is admissible to take into account the condition of mind in which the offender was at the time of the provocation In the present case the abusive language used was of the foulest kind and was addressed to a man already enraged by the conduct of deceased''s son.

A Division Bench of this Court has in a recent unreported ruling in Amarjit Singh v. The State, Cr A No. 134 of 1967 Criminal Appeal No 134 of 1967, decided on 17th November, 1969, relied on Nanavati''s case (AIR 1962 Supreme Court 605) and Empress v. Khogayi, I L. R 2 Mad. 12 to bring the case within exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case the dec-ased who was the father of the Appellant had been leading a wasteful and profligate life at the expense of the rest of the family. This had been a continuos source of provocation and the resentment had been building up in the mind of the accuson had refused to give any money to the deceased who had used abusive language in respect of the accused''s mother by suggesting that the son should raise funds even if it was necessary to prostitute his mother. In view of the feelings that had been simmering up in the past these words were taken to amount to grave and sudden provocation to bring the killing within the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In our case however we find that there were no predisposing causes in the past to justify the sudden flying in to a transport of passion on the part of the Appellant over the deceased having described himself as the Appellant''s uncle. There is nothing on record to suggest that these words carry such offensive insinuation that the Appellant''s case should be brought within exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. As I have already observed earlier the Appellant''s over-sensitiveness had been brought on by the self-induced state of intoxication by liquor. There was some provocation however, if not so grave, to justify the award of the lesser penalty u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was described to have fired two or three shots one after the other (heth utte). The weapon he had used had not belonged to him and he could not possibly have been going about carrying this weapon all the time as in Girdhari Lal''s case (1940 Punjab Law Reporter 45). Besides killing Harnam Singh, he has injured three other persons. I therefore maintain the Appellant''s conviction u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, though I do not feel that it is a case where the extreme penatty of death is called for. All the persons injured by gun shot are inclined to take a lenient view of the whole affair and have offered themselves as witnesses in the cross case which has not been disposed of so far.

The murder reference for the confirmation of the sentence of death is accordingly declined. Santokh Singh''s sentence is reduced to imprisonment for life. Except for that, his appeal Stands dismissed.