Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 v. State of Punjab

the learned trial Court. State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PA of Amandeep Singh given to Dalbir Singh SI on the by-pass of Majitha road. Amandeep Singh stated, that he is a resident of Gali Ramgaria, Verka and is a motor mechanic. On 25.3.1998 at about 3.30 p.m., he was standing in the lane (“Gali”) near the house of Satbir Singh son of Surjit Singh and Jagbir Singh son of Gurmit Singh, who are also the residents of his locality. He and Jagbir Singh were talking to each other. In the meanwhile, Munish Kumar alias Bhagar and his brother Satish Kumar alias Bhaka along with Vipan Kumar alias Kali and three other persons came there. They passed near them and went 20/20 steps ahead and then returned Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 3 back. Bhagar then abused Jagbir Singh and challenged him to run. He slapped Jagbir Singh. Jagbir Singh started running to save himself. On this Bhagar, Kali and Bhola caught hold of Jagbir Singh and dragged him in the Haveli of one Satbir Singh. Amandeep Singh asked them as to where they were taking him, but he was pushed away by the unidentified persons. Amandeep Singh’s father Sukhdev Singh and the father of Jagbir Singh came there, but they were also stopped by the unidentified persons. Within their sight, they saw Kali catching hold of the right shoulder of Jagbir Singh and Bhaloo catching hold of Jagbir Singh from his left shoulder. They made Jagbir Singh to standby with the wall of the Haveli. Bhagar gave a Chhura blow on the left side of the abdomen of Jagbir Singh and then on his right arm. Jagbir Singh fell down. Thereafter all the accused ran away after raising lalkaras. Amandeep Singh and Paramjit Singh son of Charan Singh then brought Jagbir Singh to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. On reaching the hospital, he was declared dead. The motive for the commission of the offence was that about one month prior to 25.3.1998, Jagbir Singh and Bhagar had quarreled with each other. Amandeep Singh’s father and one Rajinder Singh Mann had effected a compromise between the parties. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered on

25.3.1998 at 6.50 p.m. at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar and the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Amritsar on 26.3.1998 at 11.00 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, HC Naresh Kumar PW1, C.Baljinder Singh PW2, HC Lakha Singh PW3, Dr. Ashok Chanana PW4, Rishi Ram Draftsman PW5, Amandeep Singh PW6, Gurmeet Singh PW7, Malwinder Singh PW8, HC Balwinder Singh Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 4 PW9, SI Dalbir Singh PW10 and C.Vikram Singh PW11. In defence Bhupinder Kaur DW1, Dr. Surinder Singh DW2, Jugal Kishore DW3, Suman Latta DW4 and Ram Saroop DW5 were examined. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at

3.30 p.m. on 25.3.1998. FIR was registered on the same day i.e. on

25.3.1998 at 6.50 p.m. and the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Amritsar on 26.3.1998 at 11 a.m. There is no explanation coming from the side of the prosecution qua the delay of 18 hours in the special report reaching the Ilaqa Magistrate. Constable Vikram Singh PW11 tried to build up a story by saying, that he went at 12 midnight to the house of the learned Magistrate, but nobody opened the door. It is on the next day at 5.30 a.m., that he delivered the special report to the peon of the learned Magistrate. There is no entries in the diaries regarding Vikram Singh PW11 going to the house of the Magistrate. Dr. Ashok Chanana received the papers on

26.3.1998 at 11.55 a.m. i.e. also after a delay of 18 hours. The motive for the commission of the offence has not been adequately spelt out by the prosecution. Apart from the two witnesses Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7 stating that some quarrel had taken place a month earlier, nothing has come on record from the side of the prosecution witnesses, as to what type of quarrel had taken place. The so-called compromise effected by the father of Amandeep Singh and one Rajinder Singh Mann is also a make-believe story. Nothing has been said regarding what type of dispute had arisen. There is no independent corroboration qua the motive for the commission of the offence. Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 5 Presence of Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7 is highly doubtful. Gurmeet Singh PW7 is the father of the deceased. He is not a natural witness, but a chance witness. He is interested in the success of the case. If he was present at the time of the occurrence, he would have intervened and tried to save his son from being injured. Amandeep Singh PW6 is also an interested witness, as he has stated in his testimony that he is from the brotherhood of the deceased. He has stated, that he was working about 12 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. He also did not try to save the life of Jagbir Singh. Injuries on the person of appellant Vipan Kumar have not been explained. Injuries are of such a nature that they cannot be self inflicted or be inflicted by a friendly hand. In fact the prosecution is trying to suppress the genesis of the occurrence. Both Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7 have stated, that they did not give any injury on the person of appellant Vipan Kumar. Learned counsel for the State assisted by Sh. A.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate has argued, that there is no delay in lodging of FIR Ex.PA/2. FIR has been promptly lodged. The Investigating Officer SI Dalbir Singh PW10 has stated, that he raided the house of the accused on the same day, but they were not present. If the FIR had not been lodged at the time so given, then he could not have raided the house of the appellants on 25.3.1998. The case property i.e. blood stained earth was deposited on the same day i.e. on

25.3.1998 with HC Naresh Kumar PW1. Raiding of the house of accused and deposit of case property on 25.3.1998 has gone unchallenged. Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 6 If the entries in the DDR were under doubt and suspect of the defence, then they should have got produced the DDR. The injuries on the person of appellant Vipan Kumar were not caused on the day of occurrence, but on the next day. If the injuries were caused in the same occurrence on the same day, he would have gone to the hospital straight, instead of surrendering before the Magistrate on 26.3.1998 and it is thereafter that he was medically examined. These injuries seem to be by a friendly hand and a false story has been built up by the appellant to sidetrack the main issue of the murder of Jagbir Singh. Nothing has been asked from the Investigating Officer regarding the injuries on the person of appellant Vipan Kumar. The motive for the commission of the offence always lies deep rooted in the mind of the accused. In this case also, a quarrel had ensued a month earlier, which the appellants took offence to. This has been stated in the examination-in-chief by the prosecution witnesses Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7. No chellenge has come from the side of the defence in their cross-examination to the motive. It was compromised, but the appellants kept a grudge in their minds. The intention of the appellants was clear to injure Jagbir Singh, as after going about 20 steps ahead from where Jagbir Singh was standing, Munish Kumar @ Bhagar came back and slapped him. Appellants then dragged Jagbir Singh into the Haveli and Munish Kumar gave chhura blows on the left side of the abdomen of the deceased. The medical evidence as propounded by Ashok Chanana PW4, which corroborates the ocular account. There are abrasions on the backside Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 7 of the deceased, which he suffered when he was pushed against the wall before he was stabbed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Occurrence had taken place on 25.3.1998 at 3.30 p.m. Thereafter statement of Amandeep Singh PW6 was recorded by Dalbir Singh SI PW10 and FIR Ex.PA/2 came into existence on the same day i.e. on 25.3.1998 at 6.50 p.m., at Police Station Sadar Amritsar. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Amritsar, on 26.3.1998 at 11.00 a.m. No doubt, there is delay of about 18 hours between the FIR Ex.PA/2 being recorded and the special report reaching the Ilaqa Magistrate, Amritsar, but the delay has been adequately explained. The Investigating Officer SI Dalbir Singh PW10 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that he raided the house of the appellants on 25.3.1998, but did not find the accused there. He has also stated that, on 25.3.1998 he deposited the case property with HC Naresh Kumar PW1 at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, which contained a parcel of blood stained earth. HC Naresh Kumar PW1 has corroborated the statement of SI Dalbir Singh PW10, who has stated that he (SI Dalbir Singh PW10) deposited the parcel containing blood stained earth in the Malkhana. It is clear from this that the Investigating Officer SI Dalbir Singh PW10, came into action on the same day of the occurrence i.e. on 25.3.1998. He raided the house of the accused and also took into possession the blood stained earth. It is worthwhile to mention here, that HC Naresh Kumar PW1 has not Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 8 been cross-examined in respect of depositing of the parcel of the blood stained earth on 25.3.1998. His testimony has gone unchallenged. Constable Vikram Singh PW11 has stated in his testimony, that he went to the house of the Ilaqa Magistrate at 12.00 mid night on 25.3.1998 and knocked at the door of the Ilaqa Magistrate, but no one came out. At

5.30 a.m., he again went to the house of the Ilaqa Magistrate and handed over the special report to the Orderly of the Ilaqa Magistrate. There is negligence on the part of Constable Vikram Singh PW11, who should have followed up with the Orderly regarding the delivery of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. We are of the considered opinion, that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR and delivery of the special report. Delay, if any, has been adequately explained by the prosecution. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries on the person of appellant Vipan Kumar have not been explained, is devoid of merit. Vipan Kumar was examined by Dr. Surinder Singh DW2 on 26.3.1998 at 9.20 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Amritsar. He found the following injuries on his person: - “ 1. Lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm. present on occipital parietal region of skull 12 cm. from the left ear.

5. An abrasion 3 x ½ cm present on the bridge of the nose. Lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm. present on the outer side of lower eye brow. An abrasion 3 x 3 cm. present on right knee joint. There were multiple abrasions about 7 in number present on the back of chest and lumber ear. Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 9

6. An abrasion 6 x ¼ cm. present on the dorsal lateral surface of left fore-arm near wrist joint”. Dr. Surinder Singh DW2 declared all the injuries simple in nature and that they have been caused by a blunt weapon. The probable duration being 36 hours. Appellant Vipan Kumar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated, that he while walking struck against Jagbir Singh. There were exchange of hot words and a scuffle took place. Deceased thereafter attacked him and gave injuries to him with a heavy Danda. He has further stated, that it is the people who collected there who gave injuries to the deceased to save him i.e. appellant Vipan Kumar. If appellant Vipan Kumar had received injuries on 25.3.1998, then what stopped him from being examined on the same day. Further no explanation has come as to why he waited for 18 hours with these injuries on his body and then got him examined after he surrendered before the Magistrate. Nothing has been put to the Investigating Officer, that these injuries were caused by the complainant and as to why he did not investigate this angle also. Specific questions were put to Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7 regarding the injuries on the person of appellant Vipan Kumar, but both denied that they had inflicted the injuries. The motive for the commission of the offence has been adequately explained, that appellant Munish Kumar had a quarrel with the deceased a month back. The matter was settled by Sukhdev Singh father of Amandeep Singh PW6 and one Rajinder Singh Mann, but appellant Munish Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 10 Kumar kept it in his mind to take revenge. The defence has not challenged and no question has been put to both Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7 regarding the compromise being effected between appellant Munish Kumar and the deceased. There was clear meeting of minds, as in FIR Ex.PA/2 and the statements of Amandeep Singh PW6 and Gurmeet Singh PW7, the two eye witnesses, that it is the appellants, who went to the complainant party after going about 20 steps ahead they came back and it is thereafter that appellant Munish Kumar gave a slap to deceased Jagbir Singh. Jagbir Singh was thereafter dragged into the Haveli and appellant Munish Kumar then gave him blows with Chhura Ex.P1. The injuries on the person of the deceased, especially injuries No.3, 4 and 5 as spelt out by Dr. Ashok Chanana PW4, are on the back of the neck and back of the deceased, which clearly shows, that he was pushed against the wall. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. With the above discussion and observations, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion, that it is the appellants, who committed the murder of Jagbir Singh son of Gurmit Singh. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. There is no merit in Criminal Revision No.1439 of 2000, which is also dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 368-DB of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2000 11 (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE May 14, 2009 SKArora (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO