Raghubir
Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab [1996]
INSC 389 (13 March 1996)
Anand,
A.S. (J) Anand, A.S. (J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 1 1996 SCALE (2)689
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 436 OF 1985 Santokh Singh V. Amarjit Singh & Ors.
Five
accused, namely, Amarjit Singh, Raghubir Singh, Jagat Singh, Joginder Singh and
Ranbir Singh were sent up for trial before the learned Addl. Judge, Special
Courts, Hoshiarpur in connection with the murder of Balwant Singh and for
causing injuries to Santokh Singh PW6. They were tried for various offences. Raghubir
Singh and Joginder Singh were convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC
while their remaining co-accused were acquitted of the offence under Section
302/149 IPC. All the accused were convicted for an offence under Section 148
IPC. Joginder Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC
while the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 325/149 IPC. Raghubir
Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC and the rest of the
accused for an offence under Section 323/149 IPC. Amarjit Singh who is a law
graduate and a practising advocate and had been attributed only a 'lalkara' at
the time of assault, was in view of his previous record and educational qualifications
directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a
bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of the like amount undertaking to
maintain peace and be of good behaviour and to appear and to receive the
sentence as and when required by the court during that period. Raghubir Singh
and Joginder Singh were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default R.I. for one and a half years each for the
offence under Section 302 IPC. Joginder Singh was also sentenced to R.I. for
one year under Section 325 IPC while the rest of the accused were sentenced to
R.I. for nine months each under Section 325/149 IPC. Raghubir Singh was
sentenced to three months R.I. for the offence under Section 323 IPC and the
rest of the accused were also sentenced to three months R.I. under Section
323/149 IPC. All the accused were further sentenced to R.I. for six months
under Section 148 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed
to run concurrently and the fine on realisation was directed to be paid to the
heirs of Balwant Singh as compensation.
The
appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected
Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984 challenging their conviction and sentence as
recorded on 6.3.1985. State had also filed an appeal against the acquittal of
the accused of the offence 302/149 IPC, being Crl. A. No.526/85. That appeal,
however, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.2.1987. The
complainant Santokh Singh has filed Crl.A. No.436/85 against the acquittal of
the three accused for the offence under Sections 302/149 IPC. Both these
appeals are being disposed of together.
According
to the prosecution case, sometime in August 1984 Harbans Singh PW received a
threatening letter allegedly from some extremist on which he moved an
application to the District Magistrate for permission to carry his own weapon
for self defence. Jagat Singh appellant moved an application on 14.8.84 before
the District Magistrate opposing the request of Harbans Singh and on that
account the relations between Harbans Singh on the one hand and Jagat Singh and
Raghubir Singh who are brothers, on the other hand became strained. Because of
the receipt of the letter, Harbans Singh and Balwant Singh started living
together. On 11.9.1984 an agreement appears to have been arrived at between Jagat
Singh appellant and Harbans Singh PW for a passage through a plot. This led to
straining of relations between Joginder Singh and his brother Ranbir Singh
(appellants) on the one hand and Harbans Singh on the other. It is also alleged
that Santokh Singh PW6 brought about a compromise between Jagat Singh and Dalip
Singh which was resented to by the accused. These were the motives for the
assault as alleged by the prosecution.
At
about 10 p.m. on 11.9.84 Santokh Singh, Nambardar
was returning from his tubewell and he met Tarsem Singh PW near Octroi Post on
the Jallandhar Hoshiarpur road. They started talking to each other. In the
meantime, Raghubir Singh appellant armed with a gandassi reached there and
pulling down the turban of Santokh Singh PW6 told him that he was nobody to
bring about any compromise between Jagat Singh and Dalip Singh. Santokh Singh
PW6 retorted that he had not done any wrong and picked up his turban and placed
it on his head. Raghubir Singh appellant then raised a lalkara on which Jagat
Singh and Joginder Singh armed with gandassis and Ranbir Singh armed with a datri
came there.
There
were two other unknown persons also accompanying them.
Amarjit
Singh (co-accused) arrived on a scooter and after parking the same raised a lalkara
that Santokh Singh and Tarsem Singh should not be allowed to go and that he
would take care of the matter. On this Raghubir Singh is alleged to have given
a gandassi blow, from its wrong side, on the right forearm of Santokh Singh PW6
while Jagat Singh appellant gave a gandassi blow by its wrong side on his left
thigh. All the accused thereafter caused injuries to him with their respective
weapons on his left arm and fingers and other parts of the body, including his
right thigh and the right side of his head. In the meanwhile, Nambardar Balwant
Singh, deceased, and Harbans Singh PW7 reached there and they also witnessed
the assault. They asked the appellants not to beat Santokh Singh on which Amarjit
Singh raised a lalkara saying that since the real enemy had arrived, he should
not be spared and allowed to go away unhurt. Raghubir Singh thereupon gave a gandassi
blow on the head of Balwant Singh while Jagat Singh gave a gandassi blow from
its wrong side on the back of the head of Balwant Singh. On receipt of the
injuries, Balwant Singh fell down.
The
appellants left the place along with their respective weapons after Harbans
Singh PW7 escaped to his house.
Balwant
Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
Chowkidar
Lakhwant Singh arrived at the spot and carried Santokh Singh PW6 injured to
Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where he was medically examined and as many as seven
injuries were found on his person. According to Dr. T.S.Verma, all the injuries
had been caused with a blunt weapon. According to the Radiologist's report,
injury No.6, which was a defused swelling of the upper one third of the left
thigh, was declared as grievous. Sub-Inspector Sardul Singh PW recorded the
statement of Santokh Singh on arrival at the Hospital on receipt of the police ruka,
after Santokh Singh was declared fit to make a statement, and forwarded the
same, with his endorsement, to the police station. The formal FIR was
registered on 12.9.1984 at 12.55 a.m. The investigation was taken in hand by Sardul
Singh who went to the spot from the hospital. The dead body of Balwant Singh
was found lying there. He prepared the inquest report Ex.PC and the dead body
was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Jagmohan Singh
on 12.9.84 at 9.15 a.m.
Ths
following injuries were found on the deceased:
i)
Incised wound 10 cm x 6 cm x 7.4 cm on the forehead. It was placed
horizontally/oblique. The frontal bone was fractured. The brain matter was
coming out.
2)
Reddish contusion mark on the top of right shoulder joint. It was 4.8 cm x.12
cm. It was obliquely placed.
3)
Reddish contusion mark 14.4. cm x 1.4 cm on the front of chest in the upper
part. It was obliquely placed going upward towards the right side.
4)
There was swelling of scalp in the region of parietal region left side and top
of skull. It was 12.4 cm x 3.2 cm.
5)
Three contusions red in colour in the front of abdomen and right side near the illiac
crest.
It was
4 cms in diameter." According to the medical opinion, the death of Balwant
Singh was caused due to shock and haemmrohage on account of the injuries
received by the deceased which were all ante mortem. The doctor further opined
that injuries Nos. 1 and 4 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature individually and collectively. It was further opined that the
time gap between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and
post mortem about 12 hours.
According
to Doctor injury No.1 had been caused by a sharp weapon while all other
injuries had been caused by blunt weapon.
SI Sardul
Singh PW undertook the investigation and collected blood stained earth and
prepared the rough site plan. The clothes of the deceased which had been
brought by Constable Madan Lal were also sealed into a parcel and taken into
possession. Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh appellants surrendered before the
court on 14.9.84 and were taken into custody. On 17.9.84 ASI Ajit Singh
interrogated Raghubir Singh who made a disclosure statement leading to the
recovery of a gandassi from a heap of stock lying in his field. Joginder Singh
also made a disclosure statement on 17.9.84 and led to the recovery of a gandassi.
Both the weapons gandassi EX.P1 recovered on the disclosure statement of Raghubir
Singh and gandassi Ex.P2 recovered on the disclosure statement of Joginder
Singh were found to be blood stained. They were seized and sealed. ASI Jagjit
Singh interrogated Jagat Singh and Ranbir Singh on 21.9.84 and they also made
disclosure statements leading to the recovery of a gandassi and a Datri
concealed by them respectively.
Gandassi
Ex.P3 was recovered at the instance of Jagat Singh while Datri Ex.14 and khundi
Ex.P5 were recovered at the instance of Ranbir Singh. On completion of the
investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial and were convicted and
sentenced in the manner noticed above.
Santokh
Singh PW6 is the injured eye-witness. He has deposed to not only about the
motives but also about the assault both on himself and on Balwant Singh. He has
fully supported the prosecution version as detailed in the earlier part of this
judgment. His evidence is clear and cogent.
According
to Dalip Singh PW10 when he arrived at the spot after the occurrence he had
found Santokh Singh PW6 present there along with Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar and
the dead body of Balwant Singh. According to him, Santokh Singh PW6 narrated
the occurence to him and PW6 was removed to the hospital by Lakhwant Singh Chowkidar
in the rickshaw. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that all
the 3/4 alleged motives were minor and not sufficient to induce the appellants
to commit the murder of Balwant Singh does not impress us. The motives may be
minor but nonetheless they did provide an occasion for attack on the deceased
by the appellants. That apart, even in the absence of motive, the guilt of
culprits can be established in a given case if the other evidence on the record
is trustworthy and the absence of proof of motive has never been considered as
fatal to the prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found reliable. The
evidence of Santokh Singh PW6 is straight forward and consistent. He being an
injured witness would not leave out his real assailants and implicate the
appellants falsely. His evidence has impressed us. Besides, the evidence of PW6
has received ample corroboration from the medical evidence provided by Dr. Jagmohan
Singh PW1, Dr. T.S.Verma, PW2, and Dr. C.L.Thukral PW3. The statement of Santokh
Singh PW6 was recorded at the hospital at about mid-night and it was on the
basis of that statement that the formal FIR came to be registered. In the FIR
itself the genesis of the occurrence and the manner of assault have been
clearly detailed. The names of the accused as well as the weapons with which
they were armed have also been clearly stated. This prompt FIR containing all
necessary details also lends sufficient credence to the statement of PW6 Santokh
Singh made at the trial. As already noticed Dalip Singh PW10 and Lakhwant Singh
Chowkidar have fully corroborated the statement of Santokh Singh not only with
regard to the second part of the occurrence but also about the manner in which
the first part of the occurrence relating to the attack on Santokh Singh PW
took place. We also do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel
for the appellants that since the attack on Balwant Singh was at the spur of
the moment therefore PW6 could not have witnessed the occurrence and as such he
is not a reliable witness. PW6 Santokh Singh was very much present at the spot
and it was in his presence that Balwant Singh deceased and Harbans Singh PW
arrived at the spot and advised the accused not to attack PW6 and thereafter a lalkara
was raised that since the real enemey had arrived, he should not be spared.
Nothing has been brought out in the course of cross-examination of PW7 which
may create any doubt about the manner in which Balwant Singh had arrived at the
spot and was attacked in the presence of Santokh Singh.
There
was admittedly party faction in the village and Amarjit Singh was heading one
faction, while Harbans Singh PW7 belonged to the other faction. The lalkara
regarding the arrival of the enemy thus stands explained. The recoveries of the
weapons from Raghubir Singh, Joginder Singh, Jagat Singh and Ranbir Singh have
been amply proved from the testimony of Swaran Singh PW11 ASI Baldev Raj PW12
and ASI Ajit Singh PW13. These recoveries also lend assurance to the testimony
of Santokh Singh PW6 and Harbans Singh PW7.
Nothing
has been brought out in the cross-examination of either of these two witnesses
which may in any way create any doubt about their truthfulness. The trial court
while dealing with the attack on Santokh rightly observed:
"From
this evidence, therefore, it has to conclude that all the accused were present
at the time of the occurrence with the common motive to attack Santokh Singh PW
and on the lalkara of Amarjit Singh, accused, the others co- accused actually
attacked him and caused the injuries which were actually found on his person
during the medico legal examination. In this situation the accused formed an
unlawful assembly carrying weapons which were used in the commission of the
offence qua Santokh Singh and consequently, they became liable under Section
148 IPC. Out of the injuries sustained by Santokh Singh during the occurrence,
injury No.6 was found to be grievous with a facture of the left thigh. This
injury was caused by the wrong side of the gandasi and the blow is attributed
to Joginder Singh accused." We agree with the above findings of the trial
court.
Our
critical analysis of the evidence on the record shows that the common object of
the unlawful assembly was limited to the attack on Santokh Singh and did not
extend to cover the murder of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh apparently received
the injuries when he intervened during the course of the occurrence and those
injuries proved fatal. The trial court rightly found that in the established
facts and circumstances of the case, the accused who had actually caused the
injuries to Balwant Singh alone were responsible for the murder of Balwant
Singh and that others could not be held liable either with the aid of Section
149 or Section 34 IPC.
There
was no serious dispute either before the trial court or before us that Balwant
Singh had died at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution on account
of the injuries sustained by him. As per the post mortem report Ex.PA, the
deceased had five injuries out of which three were contusions, one was an
incised wound on the forehead and another a swelling in the parital region.
Injuries No. 1 and 4 were opined by Dr. Jagmohan Singh to be individually and
collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
According to the ocular testimony of PW6 injury No.1 is attributed to Raghubir
Singh appellant while injury No.4 is attributed to Joginder Singh appellant.
Santokh
Singh PW6 has categorically deposed that Raghubir Singh had given the gandasi
blow on the head of Balwant Singh from its sharp side while Joginder Singh had
given a blow with the gandasi from the wrong side on the back of the head of Balwant
Singh, who fell down thereafter and the other accused caused further injuries
on the deceased.
Indeed,
in the FIR Ex. PM Santokh Singh PW6 had specifically attributed the first blow
to Raghubir Singh and had stated that the rest of the accused also caused
injuries to him from the wrong and right side of their respective weapons.
The
injury attributed to Joginder Singh is not specifically mentioned by Santokh
Singh in the statement Ex.PM, Both Harbans Singh PW7 and Santokh Singh PW6 at
the trial, however, clearly deposed that injury No.4 had been caused by Joginder
Singh. Nothing has been suggested in the cross- examination of Harbans Singh
PW7 regarding the injury attributed to Jogindar Singh appellant. The mere
omission in the FIR of injury No.4 having been caused by Joginder Singh
appellant cannot in any way improve the case of the appellants and discredit Santokh
Singh PW6. We agree with the trial court that the two fatal blows to Balwant
Singh had been inflicted by Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh appellants. So
far as the defence of the appellants, including the statement of Ram Prasad
DW1, the trial court has rightly considered and found the same not to be worthy
of any credence. We agree.
Faced
with the unimpeachable evidence on the record, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that appellants Joginder Singh and Raghubir Singh could
not be said to have intended to cause the death of Balwant Singh and therefore
the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC. We cannot agree. Undoubtedly,
Balwant Singh received the fatal blows when he intervened but the injuries
inflicted on him were intentional and not accidental. The blows were given to
him with great force on vital parts of his body. Keeping in view the
seriousness of the injuries, the Weapons used and the seat of the injuries, the
offence committed by these two appellants would squarely fall under Section 302
IPC.
Thus,
for what has been said above the conviction and sentence of the appellants for
various offences as recorded by the trial court are well founded and do not
suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. There is no merit in this appeal which
consequently fails and is dismissed.
Coming
now to the Criminal Appeal No.436 of 1985 filed by the complainant, we do not
find any force in the same and particularly in view of the dismissal of
Crl.A.No.526/85 decided on 27.2.1987 filed by the State, for the very same
relief, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed.
The
appellants Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are
cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of
the sentence.
Back
Pages: 1 2