TAPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of his brother-in-law (husband of his wife's sister). The occurrence is stated to have taken place on Sunday October 8, 1968 at about 4.45 p. m. near the clock tower in Ludhiana City. It is not disputed that on August 13, 1968 the appellant Tapinder Singh, a business man and a Municipal Commissioner, had lodged a first information report (Ex. PR) with the police station, Sadar, Ludhiana against Kulwant Singh, deceased whom he described as his Sandhu (his wife's sister's husband) and one Ajit Singh, alleging that on the pretext of consulting him they had taken him in their car to the canal near the Agricultural College and after getting down from the car, when they had walked about 150 paces on the banks of the canal, the deceased Kulwant Singh, saying that he would teach the appellant a lesson, whipped out a clasp-knife and attacked him. Ajit Singh also shouted that the appellant should not be allowed to escape. The appellant raised alarm and tried to run away. While endeavouring to ward off with his right hand the knife blow by Kulwant Singh the appellant's right hand palm got wounded and started bleeding. Just at that moment Gurmel Singh, Sarpanch and Shamsher Singh, Lambardar, happened to pass that way in a car. They stopped the car. In the meantime Kulwant Singh and Ajit Singh got into their car and went away. Pursuant to this report admittedly a criminal case was pending against the deceased when the occurrence in question took place. Kulwant Singh, deceased, who had been arrested pursuant to that report, in a case under S. 307/324, I. P. C., was actually on bail on the date of the occurrence. According to the prosecution Gurdial Singh (page No. W. 7), father of the deceased Kulwant Singh is employed as Works Manager in the Ludhiana Transport Company, which is a private concern and which plies buses on different routes in Ludhiana District. Gurdial Singh is also a share-holder of this Company. The workshop, the office and the taxi stand of this Company are located in Sarai Bansidhar which faces the clock tower. Gurdial Singh, in addition, owns two taxis which he runs on hire. He also owns two private cars which are used both for personal requirements and as taxis. The deceased used to look after these four vehicles. The father and the son used to live together in Model Town. The two taxis used to remain at the Taxi Stand about 100 yards away from the clock tower whereas the other two cars used to be parked at Gurdial Singh's business premises. On August 8, 1968 at about 4.45 p. m. the deceased was sitting on a Takhat posh at the Taxi Stand. It being a Sunday the shops in the neighbourhood were closed. Shersingh (page No. W. 9) was standing close to the Takhat posh. Harnak Singh, the driver of one of the taxis and Gurdial Singh were also present. At the taxi stand there was at that time only one taxi belonging to Gurdial Singh. The appellant came from the side of the railway station and fired at the deceased five shots from his pistol. After receiving three shots the deceased dropped down and the remaining two shots hit him when lying. The persons present there raised an alarm, shouting 'Don't kill; don't kill'. The appellant, after firing the shots, briskly walked back towards the railway station. The deceased who was bleeding profusely was taken in the taxi by Gurdial Singh, his father and Harnak Singh, the driver, to Dayanand Hospital where they were advised to take the injured to Brown's Hospital because his condition was serious. It is in evidence that some person had telephoned to the City Kotwali, Ludhiana on the day of the occurrence at about 5.30 p. m. informing the police authorities that firing had taken place at Taxi Stand, Ludhiana. The person, giving the information on telephone, did not disclose his identity; nor did he give any further particulars. When the police officer receiving the telephone message made further enquiries from him he disconnected the telephone. This report was entered in the daily diary at 5.35. p. m. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Hari Singh, along with Assistant Sub-Inspectors Amrik Singh, Jagat Singh and Brahm Dev and constables Prakash Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Harbans Lal, left the police station in a government jeep for the Taxi Stand, Ludhiana near Jagraon Bus Stand on the Grand Trunk Road, about a furlong and a half away from the City Kotwali Police Station. From there Hari Singh learnt that the injured man had been removed by some persons to Dayanand Hospital. As it was rumoured at the place of the occurrence that the appellant Tapinder Singh had shot at the deceased, Hari Singh deputed Amrik Singh and Brahm Dev to search for him. Hari Singh himself, along with Sub-Inspector Jagat Singh and the police constables left for Dayanand Hospital. From there they went to the Civil Hospital and then they proceeded to C. N. C. Hospital at about 6.30 p. m. On enquiry they were informed that Kulwant Singh had been admitted there as an indoor patient. Hari Singh went upstairs in the Surgical Ward and obtained the report (Ex. PH/13) prepared by Dr. B. Pothan who was in the Surgical Ward where Kulwant Singh was lying. The statement of Kulwant Singh (Ex. PH) was also recorded by him at about 6.50 p. m. in that ward and the same after being read out by him was thumb marked by Kulwant Singh as token of its correctness. That statement was forwarded to the police station, City Kotwali for registration of the case under S. 307, I. P. C. Exhibit PM was also attested by Dr. Sandhu, House Surgeon. Hari Singh deputed Assistant Sub-Inspector, Jagat Singh to arrange for a Magistrate for recording Kulwant Singh's dying declaration in the hospital. The statement of Gurdial Singh, father of the deceased was also recorded there at about 7.20 p.m. Jagat Singh, A. S. I. brought Shri Sukhdeo Singh, P. C. S., Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to the Hospital at about 7.30. p.m. The dying declaration was, however, recorded at about 8.30 p.m. because Kulwant Singh was not found to be in a fit state of health to make the statement earlier. Kulwant Singh died at the operation theatre the same midnight. Pursuant to Ex. PH/13 first information report was registered and the appellant committed to stand his trail for an offence under S. 302, I. P. C.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, believing Gurdial Singh (page No. W. 7), Sukhdev Singh, Judicial Magistrate (page No. W. 10) and Mukhtiar Singh, H. C. (page No. W. 6) held proved the motive for the crime viz. that the appellant suspected illicit intimacy between his wife and the deceased who was married to her elder sister. According to the trial Judge the appellant for this reason bore a grudge against the deceased. The three eye-witnesses, Gurdial Singh, (page No. W. 7), Harnak Singh (page No. W. 8) and Sher Singh (page No. W. 9) were held to have given a true and correct account of the occurrence and being witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence was natural their evidence was considered trustworthy, which fully proved the case against the accused. The dying declaration was also found to be free from infirmity and being categorical and natural the court considered it sufficient by itself to sustain the conviction. The circumstantial evidence, including that of the recovery of blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence , the recovery of blood-stained clothes of the deceased, the fact of the accused having absconded and the recovery of the pistol and cartridges were also held to corroborate the prosecution story. Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce a ballistic expert was considered to be immaterial and it was held not to weaken or cast a doubt on the prosecution case because the oral evidence of eye-witnesses to the commission of the offence impressed the court to be trustworthy and acceptable. The trial court also took into consideration the allegations contained in an application presented by Gurdial Singh (page No. W. 7) in the course of the committal proceedings in the court of Shri Mewa Singh Magistrate, on Nov. 20, 1968 to the effect, inter alia, that an attempt was being made on behalf of the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused under S. 302, I. P. C. and imposed capital sentence.

(3.) One appeal the High Court rejected the criticism on behalf of the accused that the occurrence had not taken place at the spot and in the manner, deposed to by the eye-witnesses. On a detailed and exhaustive discussion of the arguments urged before the High Court it came to this conclusion.