Sucha Singh vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

Sucha Singh aged 33 years, as a result of his trial, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, under section, 302 Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has appealed.

The incident in question took place at about 11 p.m. on August 5, 1982. Kulwant Singh (PW 7), his brother Joginder Singh (Deceased), Puran Singh (PW 3) and Mohinder Singh were talking to each other in the Chowk in their locality under an electric light. Being summer time, Joginder Singh was wearing only a kachha. Sucha Singh appellant a cartman living in the same locality came from the side of his house. On his arrival at the spot Joginder Singh deceased asked him about the cycle which he had borrowed from him (deceased) in the morning. Sucha Singh did not relish this demand and he started abusing the deceased. Simultaneously he took out a dagger from his right dab and with the same inflicted a blow in the chest of Joginder Singh, who fell down on receipt of the injury after moving one or two paces. Sucha Singh made good his escape alongwith his dagger. The P.Ws. went close to Joginder Singh but he succumbed to his injury soon thereafter. Leaving Puran Singh (PW 8) near the dead body, Kulwant Singh (PW 7) accompanied by Mohinder Singh left for the Police Station to lodge a report.

On the way to the Police Post Jodhewal, Kulwant Singh and Mohinder Singh met Assistant SubInspector Tarlok Singh (PW 9) who was on petrol alongwith police party. Kulwant Singh made Statement Exhibit PE before the Assistant SubInspector on the basis of which formal First Information Report Exhibit PE/2 was subsequently registered. After dispatching the statement of Kulwant Singh to the Police Station, the Assistant SubInspector accompanied Kulwant Singh and Mohinder Singh to the place of occurrence.

At the spot, the dead body of Joginder Singh was lying in the street under an electric light. The investigating officer prepared the Inquest Report in respect of the dead body and forwarded the same for postmortem examination. The Assistant SubInspector then completed the remaining formalities of investigation at the spot.

The autopsy on the dead body of Joginder Singh was performed by Dr. Subhash Batta (PW 1) of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, who noticed a single stab wound on the same which was possible by a knife. The injury had perforated the lung and right auricle of the heart.

The learned counsel appearing amicus curiae for the appellant has made an attempt to impugn the conviction of the appellant but there is hardly any cogent argument available in his support. The occurrence in question took place at about 11 p.m. and the First Information Report was recorded at 12.45 a.m., i.e. within two hours of the incident. The Special Report about the incident which was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 7.45 a.m. was, however, delayed. According to the learned counsel this circumstances should be deemed enough to confer the benefit of doubt upon the appellant. We do not, however, agree with this contention. The testimony of the two eyewitnesses Kulwant Singh and Puran Singh clearly inculpates the appellant. Kulwant Singh is indeed the brother the deceased but he is a neighbour of the appellant, residing in a house situated at a short distance. His presence at the spot along with his brother is quite natural. Nothing detrimenal to the interest of the prosecution as been elicited form his crossexamination. Puran Singh PW is an independent witness. A suggestion was made to him in his crossexamination that the father Joginder Singh deceased was the brother of his wife. The suggestion was refuted by the witness. In any case such relationship even if in existence would not dampen the utility of his statement. The two occular witnesses are, therefore, quite reliable and the trial Court was justified in basing a conviction on their testimony.

The only point on which greater emphasis has been laid down by the learned counsel is in regard to the offence committed by the appellant. The learned counsel has contended that it was a sudden occurrence and not a premediated attack. There is hardly any animosity between the parties. After the appellant and the deceased quarreled on the question of the return of bicycle, the former certainly wiped out a knife and inflicted of single injury on the person of the deceased. It is submitted that in such circumstances the appellant could not be attributed with the intention to cause such a bodily injury which he knew would be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The counsel has relied upon Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Crl. L.J. 852 in support of his argument. The authority, in which the facts were quite akin to those in the present case certainly supports his contention. Following the said authority, we convert the conviction of the appellant from that under section 302, Indian Penal Code, to one under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. For the said offence, we sentence the appellant to five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo two years further Rigorous Imprisonment. The whole of the fine, if recovered shall be paid to the heirs of Joginder Singh deceased by way of compensation for his death.

The appeal succeed partly to the extent indicated above and is disposed of accordingly.