Ravinder
Pal Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punjab [2002] Insc 504 (29
November 2002)
N. Santosh
Hegde & B.P. Singh Santosh Hegde, J.
Appellants
along with ten other persons were charged for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307, 364,323 324, read with Section 149,148 and under Section27
and 30 of the Arms Act for having caused the abduction of Sukhchain Singh with
a view to commit his murder and for having caused injuries to Nishan Singh PW-4
on 23rd of December, 1990 at about 6 p.m.
The
learned trial Judge transferred the case in regard to one of the accused
persons to the Juvenile Court on the ground that the said accused was a
juvenile. It is also seen from the records, another accused person died during
the trial, while six of the accused persons along with appellants before us
were convicted for various offences including under Sections 302 read with 34
IPC and was imposed imprisonment for life along with other punishments for
other offences, particulars of which may not be necessary for the disposal of
this appeal. Two of the accused were acquitted.
In
appeal by the convicted accused, the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh
disbelieved the prosecution case in regard to six other accused persons while
the appellant's appeal was dismissed basically believing evidence of the
injured witness PW-4 as also evidence of one Baj Singh (PW-7), who according to
the prosecution had witnessed the disposal of the body of Sukhchain Singh. It
is against the said judgment and conviction of these appellants they are before
us in the above appeal.
Prosecution
case briefly stated is that on 23rd of December, 1990 at about 6.p.m. the
original 12 accused persons including these appellants came to the field where
PW-4, his brother PW-8 Jagtar Singh, Sukhchain Singh (deceased) PW-6 Tarlochan
Singh, the brother in-law of Jagtar Singh were ploughing the land belonging to Tarlochan
Singh in the village of Ghanga Kalam to settle the score with Jagtar Singh,
who, according to the prosecution allegedly murdered father of the accused. It
is stated that Angrez Kaur, (wife of the said deceased) one of the accused
acquitted by the Trial Court, exhorted Mukhtiar Singh, another accused
acquitted by the Trial Court to shoot at the complainant party. It is also
stated Gurpal Singh, another accused raised Lalkara that since his father was murdered,
Mukhtiar Singh should not be spared.
Consequently,
to the said exhortation and Lalkara, it is stated that Gurpreet Singh and Balkar
Singh opened fire but that shot did not hit anyone. Thereafter the appellants
and other accused persons assaulted PW-4 out of whom first appellant Ravinder
Pal Singh allegedly attacked PW-4 on the parietal region with Gandasa and
caused an incised wound just above left ear and the second appellant, Balwinder
Singh assaulted PW-4 with a Dang causing an injury on the finger of the hand.
The prosecution story then is, after PW-4 fell down and the accused persons
assaulted him, they caught hold of Sukhchain Singh, tied him and took him in
their tractor with a view to commit his murder. The complaint in this regard
was lodged according to the prosecution at about 3. A.m. on 24th of December,
1990 in Police Station Jalalabad, which is about 7 Miles from the place of
incident by PW-4, which was recorded in the general diary and a special report
was sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate which reached only at about 9.P.m.,
on 24th of December, 1990. The further case of the prosecution is that PW-11,
the ASI reached the place of incident at about 7 a.m. on 24th of December, 1990
and held the preliminary investigation which was later continued by PW-12, who
recorded the statement of the witnesses and conducted the spot mahazar. On
completion of that part of investigation case under Sections 307, 323, 324 read
with 149 and 148 was registered. On 30th of December, 1990 it was stated that a
dead body was found in the Canal near the village where the complainant
resides, which was in a highly decomposed state and was not in a condition to
be identified, but on the basis of the complainant's statement and evidence of
PW-7, the same was identified as that of Sukhchain Singh, who on 23rd of
December, 1990 was abducted by the accused persons. Hence, on additional charge
under Section 302 read with 149 was also added.
As
stated above all but the two appellants before us have been acquitted by the
Trial Court or the High Court.
Shri Ranjit
Kumar, Senior Advocate contended before us that practically, entire prosecution
case both in regard to the incident of 23rd December, 1990 as also the alleged
disposal of the body was disbelieved by either of the two courts in regard to
eight of the ten accused in such circumstances they could not have relied upon
the very same evidence to convict the appellants before us. He pointed out
apart from the allegations of assault on PW-4, there is no material to show
that these appellants had any role to play in the murder or disposal of the
body of Sukhchain Singh. He contended when the courts below disbelieved the
very same evidence of the prosecution as to the abduction and murder of Sukhchain
Singh in regard to other acquitted persons there is no special reason why they
should be believed in regard to these accused person more so when the charge
was by invoking Section 149 IPC. He also contended the prosecution evidence in
regard to the assault by these appellants on PW-4 cannot also be believed,
because of the contradictions exaggerations and improvements in the prosecution
case.
He
pointed out, though the incident in question had taken place on 23rd December,
1990 at about 6 p.m. from the material on record it is seen the complaint was
lodged only at about 3.p.m. in Jalalabad Police Station which is only 7 miles
from the place of incident and the special report reached the Jurisdictional
Magistrate only at 9 p.m.
Therefore,
the complainant had sufficient time to deliberate and concoct a false case
against these appellants because of the previous enmity. Hence he argued that
these appellants alone could not be found guilty of the charges levelled
against them.
We
find substantial force in the argument of the learned counsel in regard to the
finding of the courts below as to the involvement of these appellants in the
kidnapping and murder of Sukhchain Singh i.e. assuming that the body of Sukhchain
Singh has really been identified as stated by the prosecution. For this purpose
we need discuss only that part of the evidence of the prosecution which refers
to the act of the accused persons involving the disposal of the body of Sukhchain
Singh. As per the prosecution case on the fateful day all the 12 persons came
armed to the field where the complainants party was ploughing the field and
after opening fire, by two of the acquittal accused all the them attacked PW-4
and after attacking PW-4, they forcibly took away Sukhchain Singh in their
tractor. Thereafter the prosecution has no evidence to show what actually
happened and where and when Sukhchain Singh was murdered. The evidence of the
prosecution to establish the fact that Sukhchain Singh was actually murdered
and his body was disposed of in the Canal is solely based on the statement of
PW-7, who in his evidence stated that when he was coming from his house at
about 6 a.m. on 24.12.1990 he saw Daljit Singh, the juvenile accused, Gurpreet
Singh (deceased, who died during the trial) and Kala Singh (A-9) carrying a
body which the witness identified as that of Sukhchain Singh from the distance
of about 8 kanals being thrown into the Canal.
This
witness says that on that early morning at 6.o'clock in the month of December,
he was able to identify the body of Sukhchain Singh from a distance of about 8 kanals
even without knowing anything about previous evening's incident. His further
evidence as to what he did after seeing the acts of the above-mentioned three
accused persons, is full of contradictions and improvements because of which
the High Court refused to place reliance and acquitted PW-9 Kala Singh, who was
one of the three persons who was noticed by PW-7, allegedly throwing the body
of Sukhchain Singh into the Canal.
In
such circumstances, we find it extremely difficult to place any reliance on the
evidence of PW-7 to come to the conclusion that he either witnessed the three
accused named by him disposing of a body by throwing into the Canal on the
early morning of 24th December, 1990, or that he could identify the said body
as that of Sukhchain Singh. If this part of evidence of the prosecution is to
be disbelieved then in our opinion, it is not safe to rely upon that part of
the evidence of PW-4, PW-6 and others when they say that these appellants were
either responsible for the abduction or the murder of Sukhchain Singh. In the
said view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution case that
these appellants are responsible either for the abduction of Sukhchain Singh or
for his death by applying Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained.
But
then same cannot be the reasoning in regard to the overt act of these
appellants for causing injuries to PW-4. In regard to this incident it would
suffice to rely upon the evidence of PW-4, who is the injured person, who has
stated in his evidence that the first appellant Ravinder Pal Singh assaulted
him with Gandasa and caused an incised injury, which is above the left ear in
the parietal region and second appellant Balvinder Singh had caused in the
injury on his finger by using a dang. In regard to this part of the prosecution
case, the only argument on behalf of the appellant in that the same could have
been self suffered injury. We do not think, on the facts and circumstances of
this case, this argument can be accepted. Because from the prosecution case it
is clear that the appellants did cause the injuries by the use a dang and Gandasa
to PW-4 on the evening of 23.12.90 while rest of the prosecution case as to the
incident of that day can not be believed as having been proved beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Accepting
that part of the evidence of PW-4, as to the attack on him by the appellants,
we are of the opinion that these appellants are guilty of causing injury to the
said witnesses. Therefore, it is clear that these two appellants are guilty of
having caused voluntary hurt to PW-4 out of which appellant no.1 used a gandasa
and appellant No.2 used a dang, hence, we find both the appellants guilty of an
offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.
Taking
into consideration facts and circumstances of this case we think it appropriate
that these appellants be convicted for the said offence by imposing a sentence
of three years rigorous imprisonment. If the appellants have already served this
sentence by virtue of their conviction suffered by the judgments of the courts
below, then they shall be entitled for remission and they shall be released
forthwith.
We are
told that both the appellants are still in jail, if so, and if they have
already served the sentence imposed by us and if they are not wanted in any
other case they shall be released forthwith.
Therefore,
the appeal is partly allowed.
Back