Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab
[2000] INSC 267 (26 April 2000)
Ruma Pal, D.P. Wadhwa
RUMA PAL, J.
These appeals have been preferred from the
decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding the appellants guilty
under Section 302 and Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in
connection with the death of Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh. The Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana as well as the High Court accepted the case of the
prosecution and found the guilt of the appellants was established beyond
reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution was that on 24th April, 1986 at
about 7.30 p.m., Karnail Singh (PW3) was driving a Car with Gurmel Singh (PW4)
sitting next to him and Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh seated in the rear. All
of them had been to village Bharthala to inquire about purbias (labourers) from
Dilbagh Singh. They did not find Dilbagh Singh nor any purbia and were on their
way back to Samrala when a truck started continuously blowing its horn behind
the car.
Shamsher Singh asked PW 3 to stop the car
which PW 3 did.
Shamsher Singh got down from the car and
started looking at the truck to identify who the driver was. Jagjit Singh who
was driving the truck, brought the truck along side the car.
Jagjit Singhs son Mittar Pal ( also known as
Lovely) and Swaran Singh were seated next to Jagjit Singh in the front cabin of
the truck. Swaran Singh opened the left window of the truck and shot Shamsher
Singh in the chest with his 12 Bore Double Barrel Gun . Shamsher Singh died on
the spot.
On hearing the shot, Amar Singh got down from
the car and went to the back of the truck. Then Jagjit Singh, his son Lovely as
well as one Amrik Singh got out of the truck.
Jagjit Singh fired at Amar Singh hitting Amar
Singh in the chest. Amrik Singh told Jagjit Singh to fire more shots at Amar
Singh. Whereupon Lovely took the 12 Bore Double Barrel Gun from Jagjit Singh
and fired two more shots at Amar Singh, one of which hit Amar Singh in the neck
and the other in the stomach. The assailants fired more shots at Amar Singh.
Amar Singh died on the spot. While the assailants were firing shots, Satish
Kumar, who got down from back of the truck also received a shot. PW 3 and PW 4
both raised an alarm whereupon the assailants fled away firing shots in the air
as they ran. The motive for the crime alleged by the prosecution was that
Swaran Singhs truck had been de-listed from the Truck Union of Samrala by
Shamsher Singh who was the President of the Truck Union, Samrala. It was also
alleged that there was rivalry between Jagjit Singh and Shamsher Singh because
of the forthcoming elections to the Presidents Office of the truck union which
was to be held about a week later. On 24th April 1986 at 9.30 p.m.
Karnail Singh (PW 3) lodged a First
Information Report at the Police Station, Samrala. SI Karnail Singh, S.H.O.
P.S. Samrala (PW 5) went to the site and took possession of the truck, the car,
the registration papers, the blood stained earth from near the dead bodies of
the deceased, two empty cartridges from the cabin of the truck and four empty
cartridges from near the dead body of Amar Singh. According to the PW 5 he
found Satish Kumar who had been wounded at the spot and sent him to the Civil
Hospital, Samrala. He then prepared an inquest report and sent the dead bodies
for post mortem to the Civil Hospital, Samrala. As far as Shamsher Singh was
concerned the post mortem was performed at 10.30 A.M. on 25th April, 1986. The
post mortem of Amar Singh was done the same day at 12.40 P.M. Both post mortems
had been performed by Dr.Rajiv Bhalla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Samrala
(PW 1). According to the post mortem report Shamsher Singh had the following
injuries:- There was a wound 2 cms in diameter on the right side of the chest
with corresponding injury on the shirt and banian. The margins were blackened
and rolled inwards with clots present. The wound was present in the 2nd and 3rd
intercostal space in the mid clavicular line. The remnant of cartridge and
pellets were removed from the wound and sealed.
In the opinion of PW 1 the cause of death was
fire arm injury leading to the rupture of the right lung and left lung leading
to haemorrhage, shock and death. It was also stated that the death was
instantaneous and injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to
cause death in the normal course. The following six wounds were found on Amar
Singh by PW 1:- 1. Wound 3.5 cms diameter on the left side of chest with
blackened margins with rolled in ends.
The shirt was blackened with corresponding
injury on the shirt. The left strip of banian was missing. The wound was 10 cm
deep and in the area of Ist and second intercostal space. The remnant of
cartridge was seen in the wound and it was removed and sealed.
2. Wound 3 cm diameter in the middle of the
chest in the anterior triangle of the neck. The wound was 7 cm in depth with
remnant of cartridge and pellets removed and sealed.
3. Wound 3 cm diameter on the abdomen in the
right upper guadrant with intestine protruding out of it 8 cm deep with margin
rolled in and surroundings blackened. The intestines were ruptured and there
was corresponding cut on the shirt and banian with margins blackened. The
pellets were removed from injury and sealed.
4. A penetrating wound 2.5 cms diameter on
the posterior aspect of the left leg in the popli togal fossa 2 cm above the
knee joint line with rolled in margins and blackened ends. The wound was bone
deep with remnants of cartridges and pellets embodied in the femur. There was
fracture of the lower and of femur. The pellets were removed and sealed. There
was corresponding cut in the pajama with margins blackened.
5. A penetrating wound 2.5 cm diameter in the
left leg 3 cm below the knee joint with rolled in margins and blackened ends
with corresponding cut on the pajama. The injury was bone deep and there was
fracture of the upper end of tibia.
6. Penetrating wound 2 cm diameter on the
left leg rolled in margins and blackened end 3 cm below injury No. 5 pellet
removed and sealed.
In the opinion of PW 1 the cause of death was
due to the injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course. The various items collected by PW 5 from the site
as well as parts of the viscera of the deceased which had been removed during
the post mortem were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) by the
police for chemical analysis. On 26th April, 1986 Swaran Singh surrendered and
handed over a 12 Bore Double Barrel Gun (Ex. P-22) before the Judicial
Magistrate, Samrala (PW 6), who gave it on the same day to PW 5. Three months
later on 26th July, 1986 Gajja Singh father of Jagjit Singh produced a 12 Bore
Double Barrel Gun (Ex. P 23) which was the licenced gun of Jagjit Singh before
PW 5. After six weeks after that, the Sarpanch produced another 12 Bore Double
Barrel Gun which was the licensed gun of Shamsher Singh (Ex. P 24). Three other
12 Bore Double Barrelled Guns were produced by other witnesses on 27th October,
1986 (Ex. P25, Ex. P26 and Ex. P27).
Surprisingly, although Jagjit Singh was named
in the FIR he was not arrested but the case was taken up for investigation by
Shri Mohinder Singh, DSP, Shri Baldev Sharma, DSP, Shri Sanjeev Gupta, SP and
Shri B.P.Tiwari, DIG, Crime, Chandigarh all of whom found that Jagjit Singh was
innocent. The police accordingly only challaned Swaran Singh. Being aggrieved,
PW 3 filed a complaint on Ist December, 1986 against Jagjit Singh, Mittar Pal
Singh ( alias Lovely) and Amrik Singh. All the four accused were committed to
trial on 22nd September, 1988. The objection of the accused that the complaint
case and the challan case could not be clubbed was rejected by the Trial Court
on 8th February, 1989 and the trial commenced on 18th February, 1989. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana charged Swaran Singh and Jagjit Singh under
Section 302/34 IPC and Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singh under Section 302/34
IPC.
All four accused were also charged under
Section 307/34 IPC.
Apart from tendering the formal evidence of
Constable Dev Bharath, AMHC Jai Singh, Constables Hazura Singh and Jagtar Singh
on affidavits (as these witnesses were not required by the defence for cross-
examination), the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the
charges, namely, Dr. Rajiv Bhalla (PW 1), Ashok Kumar, Draftsman (PW 2),
Karnail Singh (PW 3), Gurmel Singh (PW 4), Karnail Singh, SHO PS Samrala (PW
5), K.S. Bhullar, Judicial Magistrate, Samrala (PW 6) and Randhir Singh (PW 7).
Swaran Singh in his defence stated that he was a member of the Truck Union and
was actively helping Jagjit Singh, the co-accused who was a rival candidate of
Shamsher Singh, the deceased in the election to the Presidentship of the Truck
Union which was to take place on 3.5.86. According to Swaran Singh, both the
deceased with the intention of scaring away the helpers of Jagjit Singh came armed
to the front of the house of Swaran Singh on 24.4.86. When Swaran Singh reached
his house in his truck at 4.00 p.m. along with his cleaner, Satish, he found
the deceased in a drunken state, shouting and using abusive language. The
deceased allegedly were also firing indiscriminately Swaran Singh claimed that
he ran away leaving his licenced loaded gun, the cartridges along with the belt
and his cleaner behind in the truck. He further stated that the cleaner, Satish
received gun shots at the hands of the deceased. He claimed that the eye
witnesses were procured. Jagjit Singhs defence was that he had been falsely
implicated because of his rivalry with Jagjit Singh in relation to the truck
union. Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singhs defence was that they were not present
at the spot at all. They examined three witnesses, namely, the Ahlmad, the
Clerk (Complaints) and the Clerk (Records) of the Deputy Commissioners office
of Ludhiana to prove that they had moved an application before the concerned
authorities for having been falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court
acquitted Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singh on the ground that the prosecution
had not been able to establish their guilt. The Trial Court, however, convicted
Swaran Singh under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Shamsher Singh and under
Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Amar Singh. Jagjit Singh was convicted
under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Amar Singh and under Section 302/34 IPC
for the murder of Shamsher Singh. Both the accused were sentenced to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of each of the offences. The
amount of fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the next kin of
Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh as compensation. The sentences were directed to
run concurrently. Three appeals were preferred before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana. The first appeal was filed by Swaran Singh against his conviction,
(Criminal Appeal No.
315/DB of 1991), the second appeal was
preferred by Jagjit Singh against his conviction, (Criminal Appeal No. 204/DB
of 1991), and the third appeal was preferred by the State of Punjab ( Criminal
Appeal No. 270/DB of 1992) against the acquittal of Mittar Pal Singh. The High
Court disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment dated 18th September
1992. The High Court dismissed the States appeal against the acquittal of
Mittar Pal Singh but affirmed the findings of the Trial Court in respect of
Jagjit Singh and Swaran Singh. However, the sentences were altered by setting
aside the sentences of fine imposed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the
High Court, Swaran Singh and Jagjit Singh have preferred appeals before this
Court. It is contended before us by both the appellants that both the Courts
had erred in relying on the eye witnesses, namely, PW 3 and PW 4 as their
account of the incident in so far as it related to Mittar Pal Singh had been
disbelieved by both the courts.
It is further submitted that the evidence of
the eye witnesses that the deceased had not drunk alchohol was belied by the
Report of the FSL. It is also pointed out that Dilbagh Singh from whom
inquiries regarding purbias were allegedly sought to be made by the deceased
had not been examined as a witness. It is further contended that the
investigating officers evidence was inconsistent with the evidence on record.
The appellants claim that the incident in fact had taken place in front of
Swaran Singhs house at 4.00 p.m. and that this was supported by the evidence of
PW 1, both as regards the deceased as well as Satish, cleaner of the truck. It
is further claimed that there was as such a delay in lodging of the complaint
by 5-1/2 hours during which time the alleged eye witnesses had concocted the story
of involvement of the accused. It is claimed that they had no motive, nor was
there any evidence led by the prosecution as to their motive for killing Amar
Singh. Finally, as far as Jagjit Singh is concerned, it is stated that apart
from the eye witnesses account there was nothing to connect Jagjit Singh with
the crime. It is pointed out that the ballistic experts report clearly showed
that the cartridges recovered from the spot could not be linked to the licensed
gun of Jagjit Singh. In our view, both the appellants were rightly found guilty
by both the Courts. The evidence against them is conclusive. That there was
enmity between the accused and Shamsher Singh was admitted. Amar Singh was the
deceaseds associate and had the misfortune not only to have been present when
Shamsher Singh was killed but also to have made himself visible to the accused
then. Both the eye witnesses accounts of the deceaseds involvement are not only
consistent but were corroborated by the material evidence. The site plan proved
by PW 2 showed that the truck was parked towards the right rear end of the car
in which the deceased was travelling.
If the deceased were firing indiscriminately,
it is hardly likely that the appellants would park the truck next to the car.
The photographs which were tendered as Exts P9 and P10 show the position of
Shamsher Singhs body next to the truck on the road on the left of the truck and
Amar Singhs body at the rear of the truck. The blood stained earth which was
collected from the spot where the deceaseds bodies were found supports the
position that the deceased were killed at the spot next to the truck and not
near Swaran Singhs house as claimed by the accused. Both the Trial Court as
well as the High Court rightly rejected the story of Swaran Singh to explain
the presence at the truck at the scene of the crime.
That Swaran Singh was present at the scene
and was carrying a loaded double barrel gun and a cartridge belt has been
admitted by him. His defence was that he had not fired any shots and that the
deceased in a drunken state were the aggressors. The appellants allegation that
the deceased were drunk does not appear to be borne out by the medical
evidence. According to the Chemical Examiners report (Ext.PV/ 3) the alcohol
concentration found in the viscera of the deceased (Ext. Nos. 1,2, and 4) was
74.75 mg/100 mls.
This does not show either that the alcohol
had been consumed immediately prior to the occurrence as was suggested to the
eye witnesses nor can it be said that the alcohol content was sufficient to
make the deceased inebriated. It was also correctly noted by both the Courts
below that if indeed the deceased had been shooting indiscriminately as alleged
by him, there would have been some pellets on the walls of Swaran Singhs house.
The High Court also noticed that it was not even suggested to any of the
witnesses in the prosecution that there were pellets or pellet marks near
Swaran Singhs house. The evidence of PW1 and the post-mortem reports was to the
effect that the single wound on the right side of the chest of Shamsher Singh
and several wounds on Amar Singh were blackened. Blackening is caused by smoke
deposit. Smoke particles are light. They do not travel far. Therefore, smoke
deposit, i.e., blackening is limited to a small range. See Forensic Science in
Criminal Invesigation & Trials (3rd Edn.) P. 280; Fisher, Svensson, and
Wendels Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (4th Edn. p.296). The fact that
the firing was at close range supports the evidence of the eye witnesses and runs
contrary to the defence account of the incident. The situs of the wounds found
by PW 1 on the deceased also bear out the eye witnesses testimony of the
incident. As far as Swaran Singh is concerned, the gun which was handed over by
him bearing No. 8395/5391/A-7 (Ext.22) to PW 6 was tested by the Forensic
Science Laboratory at Chandigarh. The report ( Ext. P-7) showed that three of
the cartridges collected from inside the truck and the site had been fired from
the right barrel of Ext.22 and another cartridge had been fired from the left
barrel of the same gun. Both the eye witnesses said Jagjit was driving the
truck. He alighted from the drivers side of the truck viz. the right of the
truck. Amar Singhs body was found shot at close range near the right rear end
of the truck. The wounds found on Amar Singhs body by PW 1 thus sustain the eye
witnesses version. No doubt, the particular empty cartridge cases found could
not be related to Jagjit Singhs licensed gun which had been handed over to the
police by his father, three months after the incident, but there was evidence
that the gun had been fired. The appellants contention that because the eye
witnesses account of the involvement of Mittar Pal was not accepted by either
of the Courts, therefore their evidence was suspect, is a non-sequitur.
Merely because one portion of the evidence of
PW 3 and PW 4 is disbelieved does not mean that the Courts were bound to reject
all of it. Besides Mittar Pals acquittal by the Trial Court is unsupported by
any reason. The High Court, in its turn, held that it was unlikely that the eye
witnesses would have remained on the spot after Jagjit Singh had shot Amar
Singh killing him instantaneously. The High Court also said that their version
that Mittar Pal Singh alias Lovely accused had snatched the gun of his father
and fired two gun shots is not believable being highly un-natural because if
Jagjit Singh accused was bold enough to fire first gun shot hitting the neck of
Amar Singh deceased, then there was no question of his not repeating gun shots,
especially when the medical evidence shows that the injuries on the dead body
of Amar Singh were caused with gun shot from close range. Thus, it cannot be
said that the medical evidence corroborates the participation of Mittar Pal
Singh alias Lovely accused in this occurrence. It is not necessary for us to
question this reasoning as no appeal has been preferred against Mittar Pals
acquittal but in the case of the accused the medical evidence corroborates
their participation. Regarding the time of the occurrence, it may be that PW 1
has stated in cross-examination that both the deceased could have met their
death at about 4.00 P.M. on 24.4.86, but this does not by itself establish the
fact that the deceased were killed at 4.00 P.M. The evidence of PW 1 in-chief
was that the deaths could have been caused within 24 hours prior to the
post-mortems. Therefore, PW1s evidence is equally consistent with the case of
the prosecution that the incident took place at 7.45 P.M. PW 1s evidence
regarding Satish Kumar in fact supports the prosecutions case. Satish Kumar was
examined on 24.4.1986 at 11.20 P.M. In cross-examination he said that the
injury had been caused within six hours. This statement means that the injury
did not take place at 4.00 P.M. Besides, if Satish Kumar had been injured at
4.00 P.M., as claimed by the accused, there is no explanation why he should
have been admitted to the hospital at 9.20 P.M. more than five hours later and
that too by the police. The chronology of the series of occurrences shows that
the crime had taken place at about 7.30 p.m. as claimed by the prosecution and
testified to by the eye witnesses. That being so, the lodgment of the F.I.R by
PW 3 promptly with a detailed account of the incident, renders improbable the possibility
of the fabrication of the involvement of the appellants.
Given these unambiguous confirmatory
circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the reliance placed by both
the Courts on PWs 3 and 4s direct evidence of the part placed by the appellants
in the perpetration of the crime. On the other hand, the appellants version of
the incident has not been substantiated at all. The fact that the deceased had
gone to make inquiries about the employment of purbias from Dilbagh Singh is
peripheral to the case and the credibility of the eye witnesses account of the
incident can in no way be affected by Dilbagh Singh not being produced in
support of the prosecution case. In any event, as recorded by the Trial Court,
Dilbagh Singh PW had been given up as he was won over by the accused. For
similar reasons, the P.P. for the State could not produced Dilbagh Singhs
mother. The appellants also contended that the evidence of PW 5 was discrepant.
The appellants have emphasised that PW 5 had incorrectly stated that he had not
gone out of the police station prior to recording of the FIR. He had also
incorrectly stated that he had found Satish at the scene of the crime at 11.45
p.m. and sent him to the hospital whereas Satish had in fact already been taken
to the hospital by some other police personnel at 9.20 p.m. None of the
discrepancies are sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution or to throw
doubt on the eye witnesses testimony. Furthermore the trial commenced about
three years after the incident. In the meanwhile PW 5 had been transferred in
April 1987 from Samrala. PW 5 was called to give evidence in 1990. In the
circumstances it is not unlikely that he would not remember the details of the
investigation. These are the adverse effects of a delayed trial. This aspect
has been dealt with at length by my Learned Brother and I am in respectful
agreement with his opinions on the matter. Having found no lacunae in the
reasoning of the High Court either on facts or law, we dismiss the appeals. If
the accused are on bail, they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve
out the sentences imposed on them.
Back