Jaswinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2009] INSC 1162 (7 July 2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900
OF 2006 Jaswinder Singh .... Appellant Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent
Dr. Mukundakam
Sharma, J.
1.
This appeal is filed by the appellant who stands convicted by the
Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Hoshiarpur, Punjab under Section 302
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
`the IPC') and also under Section 307 IPC which is affirmed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana and aggrieved by which the present appeal is filed in
this Court.
2.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a criminal case was
registered on the basis of the statement of Jasprit Singh, the complainant and
PW-1, who stated in his report that he was residing in village Parowal for the
last 12 years in the house of Joginder Singh and on 17.01.2001 at about 7.00
p.m.
when he
was sitting with his landlord's son Jasbir Singh alias Tota and watching
television while sitting on a double bed in the room, somebody from outside
called Tota whereupon the complainant opened the door and found two young person’s
standing outside. Both of them enquired about Jasbir Singh alias Tota upon
which the complainant took them inside where Tota was sitting. Then Jasbir
Singh alias Tota asked the complainant to bring tea for those persons and the
complainant went inside the house to tell the mother of Jasbir Singh alias Tota
to prepare tea. In the meantime he heard gun shot fire from the room and
hearing the shot he immediately went to that room. On entering the room he saw
the young man firing shots on the head of Tota and the other young man saying
that Tota should not be left alive. The complainant alleged that he caught hold
of the young man who fired at Tota and then the other young man, who was
wearing a `Patka', told the complainant pointing pistol towards him that he
would also be killed along with Tota and then he fired the shot which hit the
complainant on the finger of his left hand and left ankle as the complainant
had caught the hand of that man in which he was holding the pistol. Upon
complainant raising the alarm Joginder Singh, the father of Jasbir Singh alias
Tota, the deceased namely and Shiv Charan Singh, 2 the father of Jasprit Singh,
the complainant reached there. The man wearing patka ran away from the spot
while firing shots and the other young man who also tried to run away was
overpowered and the pistol was snatched away from his hand. The said young man
was identified later as Charanjit Singh and the other young man with a patka
accompanying Charanjit Singh was identified as Jaswinder Singh. In the
meantime, Jasbir Singh alias Tota fell on the bed and number of villagers
collected there. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Garhshankar along with
complainant where he succumbed to the injuries whereas complainant was
medically examined. Sub-Inspector Gian Chand came to the hospital and recorded
the statement of complainant on the basis of which the criminal case was
registered.
3.
During the course of investigation Sub-Inspector Gian Chand took
into possession the pistol and the licence of Charanjit Singh, the accused. He
visited the place of incident on 18.01.2001, prepared a rough site plan and
recorded the statements of the witnesses. He took into possession three empty
cartridges, two led bullets of the cartridges, bloodstained bed sheet from the
spot along with cap and a scooter bearing Registration No. PI Q-
68. He
also prepared inquest report on the dead body of Jasbir Singh alias 3 Tota, the
deceased. The post-mortem examination was conducted by the doctor.
4.
On completion of the investigation he submitted charge-sheet
against Charanjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Balbir Singh, Avtar Singh and Amarjit
Singh. It transpired that Balbir Singh, Avtar Singh and Amarjit Singh had
conspired with Jaswinder Singh and Charanjit Singh to commit the murder of
Jasbir Singh as he was instrumental in arranging the love marriage of daughter
of Balbir Singh.
5.
According to the prosecution, Balbir Singh had hired the contract
killers for eliminating Jasbir Singh alias Tota for arranging marriage of his
daughter with one Jugraj Singh because Balbir Singh did not want his daughter
to marry that man. The police could, however, arrest only Charanjit Singh,
Jaswinder Singh and Balbir Singh initially. Therefore, Charanjit Singh,
Jaswinder Singh and Balbir Singh were challaned and Avtar Singh and Amarjit
Singh were declared as proclaimed offenders.
Later on
Amarjit Singh was also arrested and his supplementary challan was presented and
committed to the court. Those four accused persons 4 namely Charanjit Singh,
Jaswinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Amarjit Singh were, therefore, tried whereas
Avtar Singh was still a proclaimed offender.
6.
After submission of the charge-sheet, charges were framed under
Section 120-B, 302/34, 307/34, 449 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
When the
charges were read over and explained to the accused they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7.
During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 11
witnesses and at the end of their deposition the accused persons were examined
under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short `the CrPC').
The defence examined the witness Satnam Singh as DW-1. The trial court, namely
the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Hoshiarpur, Punjab, after
hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties and on
examination of the entire records including the depositions and all the
statements found accused Charanjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Balbir Singh
guilty and convicted and sentenced them by its judgment and order dated
18.09.2003.
8.
Balbir Singh was found guilty under Section 120-B read with
Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous 5
imprisonment for one month. Charanjit Singh was found guilty under Section 302
and 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 302 and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month for offence under Section 307/34 IPC.
Jaswinder
Singh was found guilty under Section 302/34 and 307 IPC and sentence to undergo
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under
Section 302/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 307 IPC.
9.
The trial court also found both Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder
Singh guilty under Section 449 IPC and under Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act and
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 449 IPC
and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years 6 each and to pay a fine
of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days each.
10.
All the aforesaid substantive sentences were, however, ordered to
run concurrently. Amarjit Singh was, however, given benefit of doubt and he was
acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.
11.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction
and sentence accused Balbir Singh, Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh have
filed three separate appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The said
appeals were entertained and disposed of by a common order dated 23.09.2005
passed by the High Court.
12.
After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals
filed by accused Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh were dismissed thereby
upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial
court. So far accused Balbir Singh is concerned, his participation in the
commission of crime was held to be highly doubtful and so was his conviction
under Section 120-B IPC. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed against him was set aside and he was acquitted
of all the charges framed against him.
13.
During the course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the
parties submitted before us that to their information Charanjit Singh has not
filed any appeal and only accused Jaswinder Singh has filed the present appeal.
14.
We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
also gone through the entire records.
15.
It was very forcefully argued before us by Ms. Anu Mehta, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was neither named in the
first information report nor any specific role and description of his
participation had been given therein and that he was arrested from his house
only on 10.02.2001, i.e. about after 25 days of the date of incident.
It was
submitted that the appellant was arrested only on suspicion and without there
being any material or specific evidence against him and that the entire
prosecution case against him is a got up story and therefore he was liable to
be acquitted of all the charges. She also submitted that the Test
Identification Parade (for short `the TIP') was not held because the appellant
was shown to the prosecution witnesses before any TIP could be held and
consequently there was no justification for holding a TIP and in absence of the
same both the courts below should have held that the identity of the accused
was not established in the trial. Counsel appearing 8 for the appellant also
had taken us through the evidence on record and on the basis thereof she
submitted that so far the appellant is concerned, there are a number of
contradictions in the prosecution case and, therefore, he is required to be
acquitted. It was also submitted that the role ascribed to the appellant in the
incident was highly improbable and unreliable in as much as while holding
Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased as alleged by the prosecution, the
appellant was using both his hands and, therefore, he could not have brought
out his pistol and fired from the said pistol on the injured witness, P.W.1.
16.
Counsel appearing for the respondent-State, however, refuted all
the aforesaid submissions contending inter alia that the identity of both the
accused persons namely Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh, the sole appellant
herein were clearly established in trial. He heavily relied on the evidence of
Jasprit Singh, PW-1, the injured eye-witness and also on medical evidence to
substantiate that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him.
17.
On a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the present
case we find that Jasprit Singh, PW-1 as also the complainant, is the person
who opened the door so as to enable both the accused persons namely Charanjit 9
Singh and Jaswinder Singh to enter the house of Joginder Singh at the time when
the incident took place. He himself took both of them to the room where Jasbir
Singh alias Tota, the deceased was watching television with the complainant
just before the occurrence. He also categorically stated in his statement that
he had seen Charanjit Singh firing a shot with his pistol on the head of Jasbir
Singh alias Tota, the deceased while the other young man wearing a patka was
catching hold of the deceased and saying that he (the deceased) should not be
spared that day. On seeing that situation Jasprit Singh, the complainant caught
hold of Charanjit Singh and at that stage Jaswinder Singh, the present
appellant who was wearing a patka took out a pistol from the fold of his
trouser and fired at Jasprit Singh, the complainant. It has also come in
evidence that when the present appellant was about to fire his pistol the
complainant pulled his pistol downward and as such fire shot from his pistol
had hit at the finger of his left hand and left foot near his ankle. In the
meantime, on hearing a noise raised by the complainant, Joginder Singh, the
father of Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased and Shiv Charan Singh, the
father of Jasprit Singh, the complainant immediately came to the spot from
inside the house and on their arrival Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh, the
present appellant tried to run away from there. While fleeing away, the present
appellant 10 fired shots from his pistol but the other accused person was
overpowered and given beatings with fists and his pistol was also snatched. The
nabbed accused person came to be identified as Charanjit Singh. The driving
license of Charanjit Singh was with him which was recovered and which gave his
complete identity. In the meantime, Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased fell
down on the bed and blood started oozing out from his head.
Jasprit
Singh, the complainant was also bleeding from his left finger and ankle. The
deceased was taken to the hospital along with Jasprit Singh, the complainant.
Jasbir Singh, the deceased died on way to the hospital and accordingly his
post-mortem was conducted in the hospital whereas Jasprit Singh, the
complainant was medically examined and treated by the doctor of the hospital.
18.
We have a solitary eye-witness namely Jasprit Singh, the
complainant as well as PW-1, who was present in the room where the incident had
taken place. All along he was sitting with Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the
deceased and watching television. He opened the door for both the accused
persons to enable them to come inside the house, took both of them to the room
where Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased was sitting. He saw Charanjit Singh
firing upon the deceased and also grappled with him whereupon he was fired upon
by the co-accused namely Jaswinder Singh (the appellant 11 herein), who
however, managed to flee away after the occurrence by firing from his pistol.
The evidence of the solitary eye-witness is also supported by the medical
evidence and, therefore, there is no reason as to why such evidence should not
be held to be trustworthy and reliable. Jasprit Singh (PW-1) is the lone
eye-witness of the crime who had seen the actual occurrence of the incident. He
vividly described the whole occurrence that has occurred inside the room. The
said evidence on record, according to us, inspires confidence in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
19.
A very strong argument was made before us by the defence in
respect of the identity of the appellant particularly on the ground that he was
shown to the witness before any TIP could be held. On going through the records
we find that the accused-appellant has refused to take part in the TIP taking
up the plea that he was already shown to Jasprit Singh, PW-1 by the police. We
cannot accept the aforesaid plea taken by the accused- appellant for the simple
reason that PW-1 had occasion to see the appellant not only when he opened the
door but also when he took both of them to the room where Jasbir Singh alias
Tota, the deceased was watching the television. Moreover, he grappled with both
of them. He himself received gunshot injuries in his hand as also on leg from
the gun fired by the appellant. He described the whole incident in his
deposition as to how he 12 received those injuries. He had seen the appellant
accused from close quarter and also for a reasonable time. He has also
identified the accused- appellant in the court as the person who had fired upon
him. His evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor who
examined him.
Therefore,
there could be no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused -
appellant.
20.
On reading the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witness namely
Jasprit Singh (PW-1) we find the same to be convincing, reliable and
trustworthy. We find no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statement of PW-1
and consequently, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed
accordingly.
..........................................J. [Dr. Mukundakam
Sharma]
.......................................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
