KAPUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kapur Singh, the appellant herein, was placed on trial before the learned Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, to answer charges under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the allegation that on March 27, 1984 he committed the murder of his real brother Darshan Singh with a pistol. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge convicted him of both the charges and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the former and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to rigorus imprisonment for three months more for the latter, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.

(2.) Shorn of details, the prosecution case is that the deceased Darshan Singh and the appellant used to live in adjacent houses, in village Jangpur within the police station of Dakha in the District of Ludhiana. About 2.1/2 years prior to his death a prosecution was launched against him and his son Jagmal Singh for causing injuries to the appellant. Since then the relations between the two brothers became strained. On March 27, 1984, the appellant was found moving around the house of Darshan Singh since noon. At or about 6.30 p.m. while drawing water from the nearby hand-pump he stalled hurling abuses towards Darshan Singh in his absence and gave out that he would kill him. After hurling abuses the appellant went towards the village gate. Apprehending that the appellant might translate his threat into action. Inderjit Singh (P.W. 1, another son of Darshan Singh, followed him accompanied by his mother Smt. Niranjan Kaur (P.W. 2). At that time Darshan Singh was sitting on a chounta (raised platform) by the side of the village pond which is near the village gate. Reaching there the appellant took out a pistol from the fold of his chuddar which was wrapped around his body and fired a shot aiming Darshan Singh. He immediately fell down on the spot. Then the appellant dragged him to the nearby pond and threw him in its water. Thereafter he ran away. After the appellant had fled away, Inderjit Singh and his mother went to rescue Darshan Singh from the pond but found him dead. Leaving his mother near the dead body, Inderjit Singh rushed to Chowkidar Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) and narrated the incident. Inderjit Singh then approached Mukhtiar Singh of his village and accompanied by him went to the police station and lodged a First Information Report. S. I. Jagir Singh (P.W. 8, who recorded the First Information Report, took up the investigation of this case and went to place of occurrence. He arranged to have the photographs of the dead body taken while inside the pond and after it was brought out. He held inquest on the dead body and then sent it for post-mortem examination. Besides, preparing a site plan he seized an empty cartridge, the turban of the deceased which was embedded with two cardboards and some pellets, some blood stained earth, one parna and a pair of shoes. In course of the investigation he arrested the appellant on March 31, 1984 and pursuant to the statement made by him recovered the pistol (Ex. P. 17) and two cartridges (Exs. P. 18 and 19). He sealed those articles and sent the same to the Ballistic Expert for his opinion. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and in due course the case was committed for trial.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and contended that he was falsely implicated. His specific defence was that his another brother Nirmal Singh had a dispute with Darshan Singh over a house jointly owned by them. Over that issue Darshan Singh and his sons Jagmal Singh and Dayal Singh had assaulted him and other members of his family for which he instituted a police case against them. He also contended that as he was the sole bread-earner of the family and earning a total monthly remuneration of Rs. 1600/- to 1700/- as an employee of the Punjab Roadways, he was made a target by the family members of the deceased.