Jagtar
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [1988] INSC 26 (27 January 1988)
Ray,
B.C. (J) Ray, B.C. (J) Shetty, K.J. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 628 1988 SCR (2) 794 1988 SCC (1) 712 JT 1988 (1) 200 1988 SCALE
(1)191
ACT:
lndian
Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Accused giving blow with handle of
tractor-Resulting in death of deceased on spot-Report of serologist and
chemical examiner-Iron handle stained with human blood-Weapon recovered
pursuant to disclosure statement of accused-Acguittal ordered by High Court set
aside-Conviction and sentence by Sessions Court confirmed.
Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973: Section 154-FIR-Not expected to contain all
details-Effect on value of testimony of witnesses
HEAD NOTE:
% The
accused-respondent No. 2 in the appeal and the deceased were neighbours. The
prosecution alleged that on October 8, 1983
at about 4 P.M. the deceased along with one of his
sons, P.W. 8 were taking their buffaloes from their house towards the fields.
When they were moving in the lane the accused came from the opposite side
driving a tractor.
While
the tractor was passing, it hit one of the buffaloes whereupon the deceased
asked the accused whether he could not see the buffaloes and there was
altercation. The accused suddenly got down from his tractor, and taking the
handle of the tractor in his hand gave a blow on the forehead of the deceased.
The deceased fell on the ground with his face downward. At that time P.W.
l-appellant in the Appeal, another son of the deceased, and P.W. 2 were coming
towards the spot and they saw the occurrence. The accused gave 3-4 blows on the
deceased who was Iying on the ground, and thereafter took to his heels leaving
the tractor behind. The deceased died on the spot.
P.W. t
keeping P.W. 8 to guard the dead body, went to the police station which was
about 12 kms from the spot of the occurrence, by bicycle, and there lodged the
FIR (Ext. PA). The statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 9 who came
to the spot at about 7
P.M. and made an
inquest report. The tractor was taken into possession by the Sub- Inspector,
and after preparing the inquest report, he despatched the dead body for
autopsy. The accused was arrested on October 9, 1983 and on the basis on his disclosure
statement Ext. PG the handle of the tractor stained with blood was recovered.
795
The accused in a statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
pleaded innocence and stated that due to enmity he had been falsely involved.
The Additional Sessions Judge on a consideration and appraisal of the evidence,
convicted the accused-respondent No. 2 under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced
him to suffer R.I. Of life and also pay a fine of Rs.200 and in default to
undergo further imprisonment of two months The accused-respondent No. 2
appealed to the High Court. A Division Bench held that the occurrence was not
witnessed by P.W. 1 and P.W. 8, that the accused was named in the FIR because
of the previous prolonged enmity, and that it would be unsafe to rely upon the
ocular evidence without any independent corroboration, and acquitted the
accused.
Allowing
the complainant's appeal by Special Leave, ^
HELD:
1. An FIR is not expected to contain all the details.[799C-D]
2. The
statement of the eye witnesses are very clear and straight forward. There
cannot be any doubt or possibility regarding the presence of the two eye
witnesses, PW l and PW 8 at the time of the incident. [799A-B]
3.
There is no room for doubt that the tractor was left at the place of occurrence
by the accused while running away with the handle of the tractor. It is also
very significant that the handle of the tractor used to give blows to the
deceased was recovered as per the recovery memo (Exhibit PG) in pursuance of
the disclosure statement made by the accused in presence of independent witnesses.
It appears from the report Exhibit PH of the Serologist and Chemical Examiner
that the Iron handle was stained with human blood. [799E-F]
4. The
prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the
order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is
affirmed. Non-bailable warrants be issued forthwith for the arrest of the
accused-respondent No. 2, and to put him in jail to undergo the remaining
period of sentence. [799E-G ]
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 1988.
796
From the Judgment and order dated 8.1.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A.
No. 302-DB of 1984.
M.S. Gujral
and Vishnu Mathur for the Appellant.
A.K. Mulla,
R.K. Garg, R.S. Suri and N.D. Garg for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, .1. This appeal by special leave is
against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 302-DB of 1984 reversing the conviction
and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and acquitting
the appellant Paul Singh (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) of the charge under
section 302.
On October 8, 1983 at about 4 P.M. the deceased, Karnail Singh who was the next door neighbour
of Paul Singh, along with his son Kuldip Singh (PW 8) were taking their
buffaloes from their house towards the fields. When they reached near the house
of one Baldev Singh in the lane where the houses of Weaver community are
situated, respondent No. 2, Paul Singh came from the opposite side driving a
tractor.
While
the tractor was passing, it hit one of the buffaloes whereon Karnail Singh
asked Paul Singh whether he could not see the buffaloes. There was some
altercation between the parties. Paul Singh suddenly got down from his tractor
taking the handle of the tractor in his hand and gave a blow on the forehead of
Karnail Singh, the deceased. The deceased fell on the ground with his face
downward. At that time Jagtar Singh (PW 1), another son of the deceased, Karnail
Singh along with Gurmit Singh was coming towards the spot and they saw the
occurrence. Paul Singh gave 3-4 blows on Karnail Singh Iying on the ground and
took to his heels as Jagtar Singh (PW 1) and Gurmit Singh were hastening to the
spot to intervene. The tractor was left behind. The deceased died at the spot
on receipt of the injuries. Jagtar Singh (PW 1) keeping Kuldip Singh (PW 8) and
Gurmit Singh to guard the dead body, went to the police station by bicycle
which is about 12 KMs from the place of occurrence in Village Sangatpur Sodhian
and reached there at about 5.15. P.M. The statement of Jagtar Singh (Exhibit
PA) was recorded as FIR by the Sub-Inspector, Harbans Singh (PW 9). The Sub-
Inspector and Jagtar Singh came to the spot at about 7 P.M. and made an inquest report. The said report (F.I.R.) was despatched
by the Sub-Inspector to Illaqa Magistrate who 797 received the same at about
8.15. P.M. On October
8, 1983.
The
tractor of the respondent No. 2, Paul Singh was taken into possession by the
Sub-Inspector vide Memo
Exhibit PL.
After
preparing the inquest report (Exhibit PE), the Sub- Inspector despatched the dead body of Karnail
Singh for autopsy. The respondent No. 2 was arrested on October 9, 1983 and on the basis of his disclosure
statement (Exhibit PG) the handle of the tractor (Exhibit PF) stained with
blood was recovered by the Sub-Inspector. Respondent No. 2 in his statement
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded his innocence and
stated that due to enmity he has been falsely involved in this case.
The
learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties and
on a consideration and appraisal of the evidences on record, convicted the
accused Paul Singh under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for
life and also pay a fine of Rs.200 in default of payment of fine to undergo
further R.I. for 2 months. It was also ordered that the period of detention
already undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial would be
allowed to be set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Against
this judgment and order the accused, Paul Singh filed an appeal being Criminal
Appeal No. 302-DB of 1984 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said appeal was heard by a
division bench of the High Court and without properly considering and
marshalling the evidences of the eye-witnesses, Jagtar Singh (PW 1) and Kuldip
Singh (PW 8) as well as the FIR (Exhibit PA) and also the Inquest Report
(Exhibit PE) and other evidences on record, wrongly held that the occurrence
was not witnessed by Jagtar Singh and Kuldip Singh and Paul Singh, respondent
No. 2 in this appeal was named in the FIR because of the previous prolonged
enmity with him. It was also held that it would be unsafe to rely upon the
ocular evidence without any independent corroboration and acquitted the
respondent No. 2 setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the
Additional Sessions Judge.
The
incident occurred on October
8, 1983 at about 4 P.M. and the FIR was lodged by Jagtar Singh (PW 1) who is the
son of the deceased, Karnail Singh at Police Station Moolepur which is at a
distance of 12 KMs. from the place of occurrence in Village Sangatpur Sodhian
at about 5.15 P.M.
In the
FIR (Exhibit PA) it has been stated by the informant, Jagtar Singh (PW 1) that
he and his brother, Kuldip Singh (PW 8) and one Gurmit Singh were present at
the place of H 798 occurrence and witnessed the assault by the accused, Paul
Singh with the handle of the tractor on the deceased, Karnail Singh over an
altercation as to the striking the tractor against one of the buffaloes of the
deceased. It also appears that in the FIR it has been stated that the accused
gave a blow with the handle of the tractor to the father of the informant
hitting his forehead towards the left and he also gave 3-4 blows with the
handle while the deceased fell down on the ground with his face downward
hitting his head. He and Gurmit Singh were hastening to intervene when the
accused fled away with the handle. It is also evident from the Inquest Report
(Exhibit PE) prepared by the Sub-Inspector (PW 9) on the date of the incident
that he found amongst other articles one tractor-Escorts bearing registration
No. PUC 5206 which he sealed vide Memo Exhibit PL. Admittedly, there was
longstanding enmity between the accused and the deceased. The accused filed
papers which were exhibited in the case showing that several criminal cases
were filed between the parties and this long-standing enmity between the
parties was the motive on the part of the accused to inflict injuries on the
deceased, Karnail Singh and the immediate motive was the altercation which the
deceased had with the accused when the tractor of the accused struck one of the
buffaloes of the deceased.
It has
been urged on behalf of the respondents that in the FIR (Exhibit PA) it was
merely stated that the accused gave one handle blow on the forehead of the
deceased. Then the deceased fell down and the accused gave 3-4 handle blows to
the deceased whereas in his deposition before the Court the informant made the
improvement by stating that out of the 3-4 handle blows one hit him on the
right side of the forehead, one on the back of the left side of the head, one
on the back of the right side of the head and one on the back of the head. It
has also been urged that in the FIR it was not stated that Jagtar Singh, PW 1
and Gurmit Singh tried to intervene when the accused was giving blows to the
deceased with the handle. It was therefore urged that because of these
improvements, the prosecution story as made out in the FIR was doubtful. It was
further submitted that in the FIR it was not stated that the accused left the place
leaving the tractor at the place of occurrence though the FIR stated in detail
about the occurrence. This submission cannot be sustained as it is evident from
the FIR which was lodged with utmost promptitude that PW 1 had stated therein
that 'he and Gurmit Singh went ahead in order to separate him'. As regards the
statement in his evidence regarding the 3-4 blows made with the handle of the
tractor it cannot be said to be an improve- ment but it merely explains the
places where the assault was made on 799 the body of the deceased. On this
basis, it cannot be said that there wasan improvement made on what was stated
in the FIR. The statements of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded on this
score. The statements of the witnesses are very clear and straight forward.
There cannot be any doubt or possibility regarding the presence of the two eye
witnesses PW 1 and PW 8 at the time of the incident.
On a
careful appraisal of the evidences of these two eye witnesses we cannot but
hold that they were present at the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire
incident.
It
appears from the post mortem report also that that there were six injuries on
the person of the deceased and these injuries according to the opinion of the
Doctor, PW 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The
appellate court held that the recovery of the tractor was of no help to the
prosecution case as in the FIR it was not mentioned that the accused had left
the tractor at the spot. FIR is not expected to contain all the details.
This
finding of the appellate court is wholly erroneous in as much as it is evident
from the inquest report (Exhibit PE) made on the date of occurrence i.e. October 8, 1983, that the tractor was seized on that date from the place of
occurrence vide recovery memo No. PL by the Sub-Inspector, Harbans Singh, PW 9.
There is therefore, no room for doubt that the tractor was left at the place of
occurrence by the accused while running away with the handle of the tractor.
It is
also very significant to note that the handle of the tractor used to give blows
to the deceased was recovered as per the recovery memo (Exhibit PG) in
pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused in presence of
independent witnesses, Nirmal Singh and Jarnail Singh. It appears from the
report Exhibit PH of Serologist and Chemical Examiner that Iron handle was
stained with human blood.
In
view of the reasons stated hereinbefore the prosecution case his been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
The
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court is therefore, set
aside and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge is hereby affirmed. Let non-bailable warrants issue forthwith
for the arrest of the accused, Paul Singh, respondent No. 2 and to put him in
jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
N.V.K.
Appeal allowed.
Back