State of Punjab vs Bharpur Singh

V.K. Bali, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 18th April, 1990 vide which accused Bharpur Singh, his son Dawinder Singh and one Charanjit Singh son of Bachitter Singh were acquitted of the charge framed against them under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the case reveal that Beant Singh son of Mohinder Singh who was injured allegedly at the hands of the accused on 28th of June, 1989, ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 5th of July, 1989, at 6.10 P.M. Before, he died, he got his statement recorded to ASI Subeg Singh, Police Station Dirba on 30th of June, 1989 at 7.30 P.M. In his statement he got recorded that he was resident of village Kamalpur and was engaged in cultivation and his father got married twice. His six sisters were from the first mother and his two brothers and one sister were from the second mother. His stepbrothers Bharpur Singh and Mukhtiar Singh had sold their land and had shifted to Bahadurgarh town. On 28th of June, 1989 at 7.30 P.M. he was repairing the engine in his field and at a short distance from him, his father and his Behnoi (Sister''s husband) Harminder Singh of village Dyalgarh Jejia were talking with each other. At that time his stepbrother Bharpur Singh, his son Dawinder Singh and one Charanjit Singh who is maternal uncle of Dawinder Singh came to him. Bharpur Singh started enquiring about his well being. In the meantime, Dawinder Singh took out a knife from his right Dub (fold) and gave a blow with it to him which hit him on his right shoulder. Charanjit Singh also took out a knife from his right Dub and gave a blow with it on his left flank. At this when he raised an alarm of saving him, Dawinder Singh gave one more blow with knife to him which hit on his right flank and when he tried to run away, Bharpur Singh caught hold of him by hair and said, "Today, he has been overpowered with a great difficulty and as such he should be done to death." His father and Behnoi also rushed towards him while raising an alarm upon which Dawinder Singh gave one blow with his knife to him from behind with hit him on his left shoulder. Charanjit Singh then gave one more blow with knife to him which hit him on his right shoulder. At this he fell down. Despite the efforts made by this father and Behnoi Harminder Singh to rescue him Dawinder Singh gave one more blow with his knife to him when he was lying fallen. He raised his right hand to ward off the blow as a result of which he received a scratch on the right wrist joint. On raising hue and cry by him and others, his stepbrother Bharpur Singh who was empty handed, his son Dawinder Singh and Charanjit Singh fled away together with their knives. Thereafter, the members of the his family made necessary arrangements and got him admitted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he was undergoing treatment. The cause of grudge was that his stepbrothers having disposed of their share of land, had frittered away their money and now they wanted to grab his share of land and a suit with regard to the same was pending in the court at Sunam. Bharpur Singh wanted to grab his property after liquidating him.

The facts of the case reveal that the occurrence leading to the death of Beant Singh took place on 28th of June, 1989 at 7.30 P.M. The F.I.R. on the statement of Beant Singh was recorded on 30th June, 1990 and the Special Report of the incident reached the Magistrate concerned at 2.20 P.M. on 3rd of July, 1989. The village Kamalpur is stated to be at a distance of 8 Kms from the police Station. Initially a case under Sections 323/324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was registered which later, on the demise of Beant Singh was converted into Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It requires to be mentioned that there are three accused. Bharpur Singh and Charanjit Singh are already dead and therefore, the appeal against them has abated. The learned trial Judge while returning the finding against the prosecution and acquitting the accused held that there was considerable delay which was unexplained in lodging the F.I.R. The occurrence allegedly had taken place on 28th of June, 1989 at 7.30 P.M. The eyewitnesses of the occurrence were father of the deceased and Harmohinder Singh, his sister''s husband who, of course was the resident of another village Dialgarh Jaijian which is at a distance of 11/2 miles from village Kamalpur, where the occurrence had taken place. The injured was removed to the hospital by PW4 and one Manjit Singh and they reached the hospital at 10.20 P.M. The doctor medically examined the injured at 10.30 P.M. and also simultaneously informed the S.H.O. of Police Station Sangrur about the arrival of the injured in the hospital. The injured was of course not in a fit condition to make a statement and he was declared to be fit for the said purpose on 30th of June, 1989 at 5.00 P.M. whereafter his statement Ex. PO was recorded by ASI Subeg Singh which ultimately formed the basis of F.I.R. The delay in the F.I.R. was sought to be explained by simply stating that as long as the injured was not in a fit condition to make a statement, it should not be held that there was any delay and if at all the same was there, the same stood explained for the sole reason that the injured was not earlier in a fit condition to make a statement. In our view, this explanation for lodging the F.I.R. at a belated stage was rightly not accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As per the prosecution version, there were two other witnesses in this case who could certainly move in the matter and lodge the F.I.R. but none of them chose to go to the police station. As per the prosecution case these witnesses had not accompanied the injured to the hospital and yet instead of lodging the First information Report, they chose to go to their respective villages and remained there till such time the police contacted them on 1st of July, 1989 to make their statements. We are quite convinced that the F.I.R. was lodged in this case at a belated stage and there is no plausible explanation for the same. The prosecution it may be recalled mainly relied upon the statement of PW4 Harmohinder Singh and the statement of the injured who died later which was treated to be a dying declaration. If perhaps it could be held from the material placed on the records that Harmohinder Singh PW4 was actually present and had seen the occurrence as also that the injured was in a fit condition to make a statement the delay in lodging the F.I.R. might have become insignificant but from the perusal of the record and in particular the statement of Harmohinder Singh PW4 as also the medical evidence, we are quite convinced that Harmohinder Singh PW4 was in all probability not present at the time of occurrence as also that the injured was not in a fit condition to make his statement. The learned trial Judge has scrutinised the statement of PW4 in great detail and, in our view, has rightly come to the conclusion that he was not present at the time of occurrence. While dealing with the matter the learned trial Judge has observed as follows :

"Now coming to the statement of PW4 the same, it will be seen, speaks volumes about him. His name is not mentioned in the M.L.R., prepared by P.W. 1 that he also accompanied the injured with Manjit Singh P.W., the owner of the jeep. He does not approach the police for making his own statement and instead goes to his village on 29.6.1989 and sits there till he is called by the police itself of 1.7.1989. Why he went to village Kamalpur on 28.6.1989, he stated that he had no specific purpose and had simply gone to meet his inlaws. He reaches village Kamalur on that day at 12 noon and aimlessly remains at the house of his inlaws and does not go to meet the injured in the field, where he was allegedly working. He chooses to go to the field at 6 P.M. alongwith his fatherinlaw, Mohinder Singh, and there too he does not speak with the injured for about 11/2 hours. He explained that he tried to have a talk with the injured but since he was busy in repairing the engine at a distance of 30 krams, he could not have any talk with him. During the occurrence also, he did not try to intervene in order to save the injured from the accused. He did not even call the persons, who were working in the nearby field at some distance. He went to village Kamalpur to arrange the jeep, but there too he does not go to the house of his inlaws to inform about the happening of the occurrence. Coming to his crossexamination at length, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police on the day of occurrence and at the place of occurrence at about 2 P.M. This is a sheer misfortune of the delivery of this witness. The occurrence itself took place at 7.30 P.M. and the question of his making the statement at 2 P.M. on the same day could not have arisen. He, then, added that this statement was recorded on 1.7.1989. When asked how did he go to make his statement to the police on 1.7.1989, he explained that on that day too he had gone to see Beant Singh injured in the field. This again is a foolish revelation. In fact on 1.7.1989, the injured Beant Singh was not in the fields, but was lying in the Hospital at Sangrur. He stated that he did not notice any blood spilt at the spot after the occurrence. This again is a tall talk. The injured having received so many injuries with two knives, it is not expected that no blood shall fall on the ground. The witness was confronted with his police statement and there he did not state that he reached the field at 6 P.M. to meet Beant Singh. At one place he went on to disclose that he had gone to the fields on 28.6.1989 just to have the round. He was, however, confronted with his statement before the police and there it was not found mentioned that Beant Singh injured told him and his father that he would seen them after repairing the engine. He stated that even after the occurrence, he did not like to call any person, who were working in the fields at some distance. A little later, he stated that the occurrence continued for 15 minutes. It is surprising that within this long period of 15 minutes P.W. 4 or his fatherinlaw did not at all intervene to save the injured from the clutches of the accused. The most funniest statement made by this witness is that he identified the knives in question in police custody on the next day of occurrence in village Kamalpur. If this fact to be correct, the whole story crumbles down like a pack of cards. According to the police one knife and a small ''Kirpan'' were recovered from the two accused on 20.7.89 and that too on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by them. P.W. 4 further stated that the ''Thanedar'' had told him that the knives had been recovered from the accused on the next day of the occurrence. This is not acceptable to the I.O., according to whom, as already said, the recoveries of the weapons were made on 20.7.1989. In the later crossexamination, he stated that the accused were taken into custody by the police 8/10 days after the occurrence. This again is against the statements of the A.S.I. and the S.I., according to whom, the accused were arrested on 18.7.1989. According to him, the two accused were arrested from Kasba Bahadurgarh near Patiala and Charanjit Singh accused was brought from Patiala itself. This fact again is not correct. According to the A.S.I. and the S.I., the accused were produced before the S.I. on 18.7.1989 by P.W. 7 on the bridge of village Khanal Kalan. The other person, who was an important witness in the case, was Manjit Singh, in whose jeep the injured was taken to the Hospital and he also had accompanied the injured in the same jeep. This person was withheld by the prosecution and was not examined. Had he been produced, he could give some support to the prosecution version that P.W. 4 actually called him from his house and narrated the occurrence to him. The nonproduction of Manjit Singh also leaves the prosecution case to be grievously fractured.

xxx xxx

The nonproduction of Mohinder Singh and Manjit Singh P.Ws., therefore, shows that they did not know anything about the occurrence and according to the version of P.W. 4, his presence the spot is highly doubtful. He being the real brotherinlaw of the deceased may have been sounded after three days to become a witness in the case and that is how his name was introduced and incorporated after due deliberation and consultation."

In so far as the statement of injured Ex.PO is concerned it appears to us that he was not in a position is to make a statement. According to Dr. Parbhat Kumar PW1, the injured was not fit to make a statement on 28th of June, 1990 when he was examined by him. Ryles tube was inserted in the body of the injured in the intervening night of 28th/9th June, 1989 at 1.00 A.M. This tube remained inserted till it was removed on 3rd of July, 1989 and another tube was inserted by Dr. K.C. Singla PW3 on 4th of July, 1989 for draining out the blood stained fluid which were nine bottles. According to Dr. Singla who is a Surgical Specialist, the Ryles tube was inducted in the body from the nose, the throat, oesophagus and then upto the ninth intercostal space. In the condition that the patient was, it does not appear probable that he could make a detailed statement as Ex. PO which runs into two pages and contains almost all the details which were revealed by Harmohinder Singh PW4 in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doctor attested the statement made by the injured. The prosecution could not prove the motive as well. According to the deceased himself in his statement Ex.PO, he mentioned that his step brothers Bharpur Singh and Mukhtiar Singh had sold their land and squandered the amount and these persons wanted to usurp his land by finishing him and civil suit in that context was also pending in Civil Court at Sunam. Copies of the suit and the judgment have been brought on records. These documents reveal that the accused Bharpur Singh and his brother Mukhtiar Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction against their father Mohinder Singh and Beant Singh restraining them from alienating the land in dispute in specific Khasra Nos. and in excess of their shares. It, thus, cannot be accepted that the accused party was out to encroach upon or usurp the land of deceased Beant Singh. Even if Beant Singh was to die his widow and son would have inherited the property and not the accused. All these matters, reference of which we have made, were threadbare discussed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Deputy Advocate General on the basis of the evidence recorded in this case could not find any fault with the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same.