LAKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated October 12, 1979 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1978, affirming the conviction of the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1978. The prosecution case is that on September 2, 1977 at about 7 p.m. the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh and the co-accused, Baldev Singh, respectively armed with gandasi and kirpan attacked the deceased, Gurcharan Singh and inflicted injuries with kirpan and gandasi on the person of the said Gurcharan Singh as a result of which the said Gurcharan Singh died on the spot. Such act of murderous assault was noticed by P.W. 1, Jagir Singh and P.W. 2, Achhar Singh, who were present near the place of occurrence while they had been going to make payment due to one Hari Singh on account of purchase of some trees from the said Hari Singh by Jagir Singh. After the said witnesses had seen the murderous assault committed on Gurcharan Singh, Achhar Singh kept guarding the dead body and Jagir Singh went to the village and informed the father and brothers of the deceased about the details of the murder and thereafter he tried to contact Sarpanch and Chowkidar in the village but none of them was available. Thereafter he went to the house of Sajjan Singh, Member Panchayat, but he was also not available in house and on being informed that the said Sajjan Singh was present in a garden at a distance of one mile from the village, Jagir Singh went to the said garden and informed Sajjan Singh and thereafter he went to the Police Station which was about 10 miles from the village and lodged the First Information Report at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning. After that the inquest of the dead body was made and the accused persons, namely, Lakhwinder Singh and Baldev Singh were arrested. It is the case of the prosecution that on being interrogated, the accused, Lakhwinder Singh disclosed that he had kept the gandasi concealed in the paddy field of the co-accused, Baldev Singh. Such statement was recorded by the Police and thumb impression of Lakhwinder Singh was taken on the statement. Thereafter Lakhwinder Singh led the police party to the pointed place and the gandasi was recovered from the paddy field at the instance of Lakhwinder Singh. Such gandasi was stained with blood and was sent for chemical examination by the Police. Post mortem was held on the dead body of P.W. 3, Dr. P. S. Virk, noted 14 injuries all ante mortem in nature, and all such injuries were, according to the doctor, were caused by a sharp-edged weapon like kirpan or gandasi and in the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries Nos. 4, 6, 9 and 11 and such injuries both individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to the doctor, the death was instantaneous after the injuries. Both the accused persons, in the statement recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, denied the allegations made against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused, Baldev Singh, did not produce any evidence in defence but Lakhwinder Singh tendered in evidence certified copies of Judgments Exs. DA, DB and DC and thereafter closed his case for evidence.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge inter alia came to the finding that the explanation of delay in lodging F.I.R. given by the prosecution was not satisfactory and the F.I.R. having been lodged after about eight hours of the occurrence must be held to be belated. The learned Sessions Judge, however, accepted the motive imputed by the prosecution for the said crime namely giving up the job by the deceased in Lakhwinder's concern before the contract period and non-payment of outstanding wages to the deceased despite demands. The learned Sessions Judge, however, held that motive was not an essential ingredient of the offence. Referring to the discrepancies in the evidence of two eye-witnesses, namely, Jagir Singh (PW 1) and Achhar Singh (PW 2), the learned Sessions Judge had come to the finding that in view of some discrepancies in the deposition indicated by him in the Judgment, complicity of the co-accused, Baldev Singh, could not be established beyond all reasonable doubts. In that view of the matter, he acquitted Baldev Singh but the learned Sessions Judge inter alia came to the finding that the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, had committed the murder of Gurcharan Singh and his complicity was clearly established from the evidences of the eye-witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and there was no inconsistency in that regard. The learned Sessions Judge also held that the recovery of the blood-stained gandasi at the instance of Lakhwinder Singh and blood stain found on the turban of Lakhwinder Singh also corroborated the testimony of eye-witnesses. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(3.) No appeal was preferred by the State against acquittal of Baldev Singh. The appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, however, preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1978. The High Court inter alia came to the finding that in the facts of the case there was no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the Police Station which was at a distance of 10 miles and admittedly, the copy of the F.I.R. was received by the Taluka Magistrate, by 9.00 a.m. next morning. The High Court was also of the view that there was no sufficient reason to disbelieve the motive imputed by the prosecution. The High Court was also of the view that considering the discrepancies of the eye-witnesses so far as the complicity of Baldev Singh was concerned, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly given a verdict of acquittal on the score of benefit of doubt of the said accused but the case against the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, having been clearly established, the High Court was of the view that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant. The appeal preferred by the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, was therefore, dismissed by the High Court.