Sawinder Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Sawinder Singh alias Chhinda son of Ishar Singh has filed the present appeal against order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by Shri Nirmal Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated September 19, 1994, vide which he was held guilty u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo R1 for three months.

As per the prosecution version, the appellant in the company of Tarsem Singh and Mohan Singh who could not be apprehended, and were, as such declared proclaimed offenders, had killed Sulakhan Singh, in the presence of his son, Sona, a child of 12-13 years. It is on the statement of Sona that the F.I.R. with regard to murder of Sulakhan Singh came to be recorded on March 21, 1990 at 11.45 a.m. Sona. while narrating the events leading to the death of his father, stated that he belonged to village Bajuman. They were two brothers and two sisters. His elder sister Nindero wife of Dharam Singh was married at village Abdal and he along with his father was living at village Abdal with his sister for the last 5-6 years. Last night, his maternal uncle Balkar Singh came to sec them. After taking their meals, he and his father went to lubewell in order to sleep. His maternal uncle remained with his sister at village. At about 9 p.m. when he and his father were sleeping in the room of the tubcwell and lamp was emitting light, door was knocked and his father opened.the same. He also woke up. Tarsem Singh alias Scma son of Darbara Singh and Surindcr Singh alias Chhinda son of Ishar Singh, caste Jat, residents of village Bajuman and Mohan Singh, Nihang of village Leharka, were standing in the door. He knew them well as they had stayed in his village for about 10-12 days in connection with their land dispute. All the three persons dragged his father towards well. He raised an alarm and began weeping. They started causing injuries with their Dattars to his father. He ran towards the village while crying. His maternal uncle Balkar Singh and his brother-in-law, Dharam Singh met him on the way. He narrated them the whole occurrence. They along with him ran towards tubewell. All the three accused ran towards the katcha passage leading to village Abdal within their sight. He remained at the tubewell till morning.Then his uncle Balkar Singh took him along and they were going to lodge a report that ASI Gurdip Singh of Police Station Kathunangal met them. Sona further stated that the accused had killed his father for the reason that a case pending regarding the land and for that there was a dispute in the village. From the narration of facts, as have been given above, it, thus, appears that whereas the occurrence took place on March 20. 1990 at 9 p.m. the FIR on the statement of Sona came to be recorded on March 21, 1990 at 11.45 a.m. Police Station Kathunangal is.stated to be at a distance of four miles from village Abdal. The special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at Amritsar on March 21, 1990 at 4.10 p.m.

Tarsem Singh and Mohan Singh, as mentioned above, had absconded after the incident and as per the information given to the Court, by Mr. Mehlab Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, they are still at large. They were declared proclaimed offenders, and, therefore, it is Sawinder Singh alone who was tried for an offence u/s 302, IPC with the result, as mentioned above.

PW 3 Dr. Vas Dev Sharma conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sulakhan Singh on March 21, 1990 at 4.30 p.m. and found following injuries:-

I. An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm was present on the middle of right pinna which was cut into 2 pieces.

A lacerated wound 17 cm x 7 cm was present on the right side of head just above the right ear.

A lacerated wound 7cm x 3 cm was present on the right side of head, 6 cm above and behind the outer angle of right eye.

An abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm was present on the dorsal side of right shoulder.

On dissection of head, skull was found normal. There was no fracture. Intra - cranial haemorrhage was seen and on the surface of brain 2 blood clots were present. There was about 100 cc of clotted and free fluid blood present in the cranial cavity. All the injuries were ante-morlem and were caused by blunt weapon except injury No. 1 which was due to sharp edged weapon. There was about 100 cc semi -digested food in the stomach. Urinary bladder was empty. Rest of the organs were normal. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to brain which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Balkar Singh, maternal uncle of Sona, and his brother-in-law, Dharam Singh, even though related as such, were not examined and were given up as having been won over by the appellant. Sona, who was examined as PW. 1, however, fully supported the prosecution version and almost reiterated the facts leading to the death of his father as he had narrated before Gurdip Singh, ASI when he lodged the FIR on March 21, 1990. His sole testimony could ,not be shaken in cross-examination and there is nothing worthwhile in the cross-examination that might need a special mention but for the fact that it was suggested to him that some unknown persons had killed his father during night and that he came to know in the morning and with due deliberations at the instance of S. Ajit Singh he had named the accused. He also denied the suggestion that his father was a man of loose character. Gurdip Singh, ASI was examined as PW 4 and he stated that on March 21, 1990 he was posted at ASI in Police Station Kathunangal and on that day he along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand, Sahnewal where Sona son of Sulakhan Singh met him. He made statement. Ex. PA which was sent to the police station after making endorsement, Ex. PA/1, on the basis of which, FIR, Ex. PA/2 was recorded by Samma Singh, MHC. After recording statement, he along with other police officials went to village Abdal where dead body of Sulakhan Singh was lying. He prepared the inquest report, Ex. PE. Dead body of Sulakhan Singh was identified by Balkar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, whose names duly stand mentioned in the inquest report. He also prepared rough site plan with its correct marginal notes and look into possession blood stained earth from the spot which was put into a tin and converted into a sealed parcel. He stated that he tried to arrest the accused and for that purpose raided their houses but they were not available.

The appellant, when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied all the questions that were put to him and ultimately staled that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction in the village.

We have heard Ms. Ranjeet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mehtab Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and, with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case..

The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the prosecution has given up two material witnesses, namely, Balkar Singh and Dharam Singh as having been won over even though they were closely related to deceased Sulakhan Singh. No reliance could be placed upon the testimony of Sona P.W. 1 who was child of 12-13 years unless there was some corroboration lo his testimony. It is also being argued that there was no reason for P.W. I Sona to have identified the appellant and his co-accused as it was an occurrence which took place at 9.00 p.m. and there was no light as also when the appellant and his two co accused were not known to the concerned witness. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that it is only injury No. I which proved fatal and it is not known, out of three accused who had caused the said injury, the appellant, thus, should be held liable for the other injuries which were only simple in nature. Mr. Mehtab Singh learned Deputy Advocate General. Punjab, however joined issues with the learned counsel representing the appellant on all the points mentioned above and has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we, however, find no substance in either of them. The appeal, thus, deserves to be dismissed. It is true that whereas Balkar Singh is the maternal uncle of P.W. 1 Sona, Gurdial Singh is his brother-in-law and both of them were not examined as having been won over by the accused. That, however, in our view is not enough to discard the sworn testimony of Sona who is son of deceased Sulakhan Singh. P.W. I Sona even though a child of 12-13 years has given a very cogent and consistent account of the events leading to the death of his father. He was a natural witness as well. His testimony could not be shaken in any manner whatever in the cross-examination to which he was subjected. In so far as child witness is concerned, the Court has only to form an opinion as to whether the concerned child is giving rational answers to the questions put to him. if on the statement made by such a witness, the Court can clearly make out that he is intelligent and answers the questions put to him in a rational manner, he is as good a witness as any one else and if the presence of such a witness cannot be disputed or is otherwise established, no corroboration is required to accept his version and the conviction can be based upon his sole testimony. It may be mentioned here that Balkar Singh and Gurdial Singh were given up as having been won over and it is not a case where they were examined and have not supported the prosecution case. P.W. I Sona, in our view, was able to identify the assailants of his father for the reason that the appellant belonged to his village whereas the other two who were still absconding were slaying in the village for the last 10-12 days as is made out from his statement. That apart, it was clearly stated by him in the l.l.R. that lamp in the lubewell Kotha was emitting light when the assailants of his father had knocked at the door and entered into the room where he along with his father was sleeping. In so far as the contention of the learned defence counsel with regard to injury No. I alone being sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and no evidence or proof as to which of the accused caused this injury is concerned, suffice it to say that second injury is a lacerated wound 17 cm x 7 cm on the right side of head just above the right ear whereas the third injury is also a lacerated wound 7 cm x 3 cm on the right side of head, 6 cm above and behind the outer angle of right eye. Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemonahage as a result of injuries to brain which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. That apart, even if the argument of the learned defence counsel is accepted, the appellant can certainly be pinned down u/s 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the assailants had come together and had opened a simultaneous attack upon Sulakhan Singh.

The appeal is, thus, dismissed.