MAGHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Maghar Singh by special leave against the order of the High Court dated February 12, 1974 confirming the conviction and sentence of death against Maghar Singh and sentence of life imprisonment on Smt. Surjit Kaur under Section 302 I.P.C. Both the High Court of Punjab and Haryana who have confirmed the conviction and sentence against the appellant as also the Sessions Judge have carefully scanned the evidence and it is, therefore, not necessary for us to detail the facts of the present case. We shall, however, give a brief resume' of the prosecution case which resulted in the murder of Gurbux Singh resulting from lust and greed on the part of the appellant and Smt. Surjit Kaur.

(2.) Smt. Surjit Kaur was living with the deceased Gurbux Singh for about 9/10 years as his wife. The approver Baldev Singh, P.W. 11, was her pichhlagu son offspring from the first husband. What appeared to be a happy married life for quite a few years appears to have been subsequently disrupted by the entry of Maghar Singh accused who started clandestine visits to the house of the deceased 3/4 years before the occurrence and developed illicit intimacy with Smt. Surjit Kaur. According to the prosecution Smt. Surjit Kaur eloped with the appellant about 6/7 months before the occurrence but returned to her husband Gurbux Singh after an attempt was made by him to bring her home 9/10 days before the occurrence, the occurrence having taken place on June 14, 1972 at 10 P.M. in village Kotduna, Tahsil and District Barnala. Even after the return of Surjit Kaur, Maghar Singh continued to visit the house of the deceased and continued his intimacy with Surjit Kaur which was strongly resented by the deceased. As the deceased appeared to be a very serious obstacle in the illicit relations of Surjit Kaur and Maghar Singh the two accused after taking Baldev Singh approver (P.W.11) into confidence planned the murder of the deceased Gurbux Singh. The immediate cause for the murder of the deceased was provided by the fact that the deceased Gurbux Singh had made a will in favour of the Pichhlagu son Baldev Singh and Surjit Kaur thought that lest the deceased might change his mind it is better to finish him off and grab the entire property for her son. Animated with this object, Maghar Singh knocked at the door of the house of the deceased at 10 P.M. when the deceased was sitting in his house.The door was opened by Smt. Surjit Kaur and Maghar Singh entered with a Kirpan Ext. P-5, Surjit Kaur caught the deceased by his long hair while the approver Baldev Singh caught his legs, Maghar Singh gave several Kirpan blows in quick succession on the neck and other parts of his body causing as many as 17 injuries out of which injuries Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 15 as mentioned by Dr. M. S. Caplash P.W. 1 were incised wounds and were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. The deceased raised an alarm on receiving the first blow which attracted Sarwan Singh, P.W. 3, the brother of the deceased to the house, but as he got no response from the inmates of the house he climbed the roof of the house and found Surjit Kaur and Maghar Singh sitting on one cot in the courtyard. He enquired from Surjit Kaur as to what had happened but she explained away that the deceased had some fits and she was looking after him. This apparently satisfied Sarwan Singh and he went back to his house. In the morning Sarwan Singh again returned to the house of the deceased to enquire about the welfare of his brother, but Surjit Kaur gave incoherent answers and tried to avoid the questions. This abnormal conduct of Surjit Kaur as also the presence of blood in the court-yard aroused his suspicion and he at once went to the house of Bachan Singh, P. W. 4, the Panch of the village and narrated the entire story to the Panch as also to Bhajan Singh Lambardar. When these persons reached the spot, Maghar Singh slipped out of the house and Surjit Kaur had sent away her son Baldeo Singh to the village of his father-in-law. On inquiry by Bachan Singh, P.W 4, Surjit Kaur made an extra-judicial confession and admitted that she and Maghar Singh had murdered the deceased because they found him a great obstacle in their illicit relationship. Sarwan Singh then proceeded to the police station but he was informed at the bus- stop that the Inspector Gurchetin Singh was present in the village. So he met the Investigating Officer in the bank building and lodged the F.I.R. Ext. PD/1 Smt Surjit Kaur was immediately arrested. The Police Officer started the investigation in the course of which blood-stained Salwar of Surjit Kaur was recovered at the time of her arrest as also the blood-stained earth was taken from the place of occurrence. On June 16, 1972, Maghar Singh realizing that there was no way out came to the house of Kartar Singh Sarpanch where Jit Singh Lambardar was also present, and confessed his guilt and then was produced before the Inspector who arrested him. After the usual investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and Surjit Kaur which resulted in the commitment inquiry and in the ultimate conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge as indicated above.

(3.) The central evidence in this case consists of the testimony of the approver Baldev Singh, P.W. 11. who has given a full narrative of the manner in which the deceased was hacked to death by Maghar Singh, with the aid of the approver and Smt. Surjit Kaur. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two points before us. In the first place he submitted that the evidence of the approver Baldev Singh must be excluded from consideration because the provisions of Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were, not complied with in as much as the statement given by the approver on the basis of which he was granted pardon was a purely self-exculpatory statement and did not fall within the four corners of Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a perusal of the statement of Baldev Singh we are unable to agree with this contention. It is true that Baldev Singh did not say that he took any active part in the assault on the deceased, but his statement clearly shows that he was a privy to or an abetter in the commission of the offence. The Magistrate who granted the pardon to the approver was fully satisfied that the approver was going to make a full and complete disclosure which he undoubtedly did. In these circumstances, we do not think that the provisions of Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been violated in any way.