Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 v. STATE OF PUNJAB

his father asked him to firstly vacate his land at village Khiali. Upon this the accused pointed his gun towards his father Paramjit Singh and exhorted that he would finish him today. Thereafer, he and his mother tried to pacify the accused, but the accused paid no heed to them and fired a gun shot which hit Paramjit Singh in his chest and he fell down on the ground having his face downwards and succumbed to the injury. Apart from Major Singh (PW2), his mother Mohinder Kaur (PW3) and Darshan Singh also witnessesed the occurrence. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot alongwith his gun. His mother Mohinder Kaur (PW3) and brother Darshan Singh were left to guard the dead body and the matter was reported to the Police by Major Singh (PW2). On the basis of the aforesaid statement (Ex.PD), formal FIR (Ex.PD/2) was registered on 24.6.1999 at 2.15 p.m. The spot was inspected by S.I. Nachhtar Singh. The dead body of Paramjit Singh was sent for post-mortem. Blood stained earth and simple earth were lifted from the spot and were made into sealed parcels bearing impression 'NS'. A blood stained pair of shoes was also lifted from the spot and was also made into a sealed parcel. Further, one empty cartridge of .12 bore was lifted from the corner of the metaled passage of the village and was also made into a sealed parcel. On 1.7.1999, the accused was arrested. On interrogation, he Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -4- made a disclosure statement and got recovered .12 bore SBBL gun bearing No.29621 with broken butt from the place disclosed by him, which was made into a sealed parcel. After completing necessary formalities, two challans were filed against him one under Section 302 IPC and the other under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. PW1 Dr. Bhalinder Singh, Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Paramjit Singh found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- “1. Lacerated wound 3 cm. on the left medial side of the external lower end. Margins were irregular. Some tattoing were present.

2. Three oval areas, just above and medical to above injury, each measuring 1/4th cm. adjoining each other.

3. There was one oval 1/4th cm. area just two cms. Away from injury No.1, on the upper side of the wound.” On dissection, 5 cms. Oval in shape area was missing between 6th and 10th ribs and the area towards left to right side, crushing the miediastium and right lower lung. Pellets were recovered from the cavity. Left side of pleaurea was badly crushed below the injury and missing. Larynx and Treachae were missing below the injury and medial side area was crushed and was having purches from where the pellets were Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -5- recovered. 5 cms. area of left lower lung medial side was missing. Large vessels were damaged badly. Small crows eachomoiseted area was on the liver from where 5 pellets were recovered.” The Doctor further opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock because of the injuries suffered by the fire arm. PW2 Major Singh (complainant) deposed that the accused was time and again raising a dispute over a piece of land in village Gumti which was in cultivating possession of the deceased vide agreement arrived at between the deceased and the accused. On 24.6.1999, at about 11.00 AM, when he and his father Paramjit Singh (deceased) were weaving a cot, the accused came there with his .12 bore SBBL gun and threatened his father to vacate his land of village Gumti. Upon this his mother tried to pacify the accused, but the accused paid no heed to her request and fired a gun shot on the chest of his father Paramjit Singh (deceased) in his chest, upon which he fell down on the ground having his face downwards and succumbed to the injury. PW3 Mohinder Kaur also deposed on the same line as PW2 Major Singh (complainant). Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh was also tendered into evidence as Ex.PZ/1, according to which, it was held that the empty cartridge which was recovered from the spot and was taken into possession was fired from .12 bore SBBL gun bearing No.29621-1969, which was got recovered from the accused on his disclosure statement. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. After closure Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -6- of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidence against him was put to him. He denied the allegations. Accused Bhola Singh pleaded that he had been falsely implicated because of land dispute. He further stated that he never went to village Gumti and his brother Paramjit Singh was actually murdered by some unknown persons. In defence, the accused examined MHC Satnam Singh as DW1, who did not bring DDR dated 24.6.1999, as the same was not traceable. The trial Court after relying upon the eye witnesses account and the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as narrated in the opening paragraph. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is only the evidence of relation witnesses and there is no independent corroboration to the related witnesses who are deeply interested in the success of the case. As such, no conviction can be based on the basis of such witnesses. It is next contended that there was common ancestor of the complainant party and the accused i.e. grand father for inheriting the land. The allegation that there was a land dispute between them is not corroborated from any evidence on record. In fact some unknown person had committed murder of Paramjit Singh and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been contended that by the counsel for the accused that presence of Major Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Kaur (PW3), at the time of occurrence, was most unnatural, as had they been present at the time of the alleged occurrence, then they would have definitely intervened Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -7- in order to save the deceased. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has contended that there is ample and corroborative evidence, led by the prosecution, to prove the guilty of the accused. PW-2 Major Singh complainant has fully corroborated his statement Ex.PD made before the police and on the basis of said statement the present case has been registered. His statement has further been fully corroborated by (PW-3) Mohinder Kaur. Learned defence counsel has not pointed out any infirmity or contradiction in the statement of the aforesaid two prosecution witnesses. Learned State counsel has contended that reposing confidence on the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses and other connected evidence learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State Counsel and have also gone through the evidence on record with their assistance. Undisputedly the complainant party and the accused are related to each other. No doubt, the prosecution case is based on the evidence of relation witnesses but evidence of relation witnesses cannot be discarded and distrusted merely on the ground of their relationship. The relation witnesses cannot leave the actual culprits and rope an innocent person because Bhola Singh appellant accused is uncle of Major Singh, complainant, and there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused in this case. After scrutinizing the evidence of Major Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Kaur (PW3) carefully, the conclusion derived therefrom is only that the prosecution evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmity and as such inspires confidence. Major Singh (PW2) deposed that on 24.06.1999 at Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -8- about 11.00 A.M when he and his father Paramjit Singh were weaving a cot in the house, Bhola Singh accused-appellant came there with his .12 bore SBBL gun and threatened Paramjit Singh to vacate the land of village Gumti. Thereafter his mother Mohinder Kaur (PW3) had tried to pacify the accused but the accused paid no heed to her request and fired a gun shot which hit on the chest of his father Paramjit Singh. As a result of which, he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injury. Mohinder Kaur (PW3) also corroborated the statement of Major Singh (PW2) on all the material aspect of the prosecution case. Moreover, the statements of Major Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Kaur (PW3) find corroboration from the medical evidence tendered by Dr. Bhalinder Singh (PW1) who opined that cause of death was hemorrhage and shock because of the injuries suffered by the fire arm. The fire arm was recovered from the accused on the basis of the disclosure statement made by him. The aforesaid statement has been further corroborated by the report Ex.PZ/1 rendered by Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. Vide report Ex.PZ/1, it was reported that the empty cartridge which was got recovered from the spot and was taken into possession, was fired from .12 bore SBBL gun bearing No. 29621-

1969. On the strength of the aforesaid prosecution evidence it cannot be said that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated on the basis of relation witnesses. Now diverting to the next argument addressed by the learned defence counsel that the accused-appellant had been falsely implicated in this case because the murder of Paramjit Singh had been committed by some unknown person and also due to the fact that there was no land dispute between both the parties. In this regard, the accused appellant had not led Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -9- any defence evidence in support of this version. Rather from the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the murder of Paramjit Singh had been committed by some unknown person because the occurrence in this case had taken place on 24.06.1999 at 11.00 A.M. Major Singh (PW2) had reported the matter to the police on the same day at 1.30 P.M. and on the basis of the statement of the Major Singh complainant formal FIR as Ex.PD/2 was recorded on the same day at 2.15 P.M. The reporting of the occurrence was very prompt and as such there was no occasion for the complainant and the police to falsely implicate the accused- appellant in this case. The argument of the counsel for the appellant that Major Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Kaur (PW3) were not present at the time of occurrence is without merit. Both Major Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Kaur (PW3) have categorically stated that while they were weaving the cot, Bhola Singh came and fired from his .12 bore SBBL gun. These two witnesses had hardly any time to react as the firing took place from a very short distance. Moreover, different persons react differently, in a given situation. Some loose equilibrium and remain silent spectators, whereas some react by shouting and some may remain stunned. The entire occurrence took place in a very short span of time and the witnesses were unable to prevent the accused from firing. Their presence is not at all unnatural or improbable and in fact their depositions in Court are trust-worthy and reliable. The ocular version consisting of the statement of Major Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Kaur (PW3) duly corroborated by medical evidence and disclosure statement Ex.PW6/C made by the accused on 01.07.1999 before the Investigating Officer and the report of Forensic Science Crl.A. No.714-DB of 2001 -10- Laboratory Ex.PZ/1, is consistent to the case set up by the prosecution and the only irresistible conclusion from the evidence is that the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt and it was Bhola Singh accused who had caused the death of Paramjit Singh by fire arm. Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. In case the accused-appellant is on bail his bail/surety bond stand cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to serve remaining portion of his sentence. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 11, 2010 Gulati (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE