BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhupendra Singh has come up to this Court in appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the sentence of death awarded to him by the Sessions Judge of Jullundur for, an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissing his appeal against the conviction and sentence. The conviction of the appellant was recorded for committing the murder of one Gurdarshan Singh who was living in the same village Birpind as the appellant in the house adjoining the appellant's house. The appellant's father, Ajit Singh, alse lived with the appellant, while, with Gurdarshan Singh, were living his sons, Gurdial Singh and Sarvjit Singh, and his daughter Gian Kaur. According to the prosecution, on the 6th November, 1965, at about 7.45 p. m., the two brothers, Gurdial Singh and Sarvjit Singh, happened to be standing in front of their house talking to each other, when the appellant came out of his house and asked them what they were talking about. Gurdial Singh replied that he and Sarvjit Singh were brothers and were talking between themselves and it was no business of the appellant to interfere. The appellant, thereupon, abused the two brothers and also slapped Sarvjit Singh on the face. Gurdial Singh asked the appellant why he had beaten his brother and used abusive language against the appellant. The appellant got enraged, ran into his house abusing the two boys, and returned with a double-barrel 12 bore gun. When he came out of his house this time, he was accompanied by his father, Ajit Singh. Gurdial Singh and Sarvjit Singh then ran into the 'deorhi' of their house. In the meantime, their father, Gurdarshan Singh, and their sister, Gian Kaur, returned to the house from their fields. When Gurdarshan Singh saw the appellant carrying the gun, he enquired what the matter was. Thereupon, Ajit Singh raised a 'lalkara' asking his son, the appellant, to finish off Gurdarshan singh. The appellant then fired two shots in quick succession from his gun hitting Gurdarshan Singh on vital parts of his body. Gurdarshan Singh fell down dead on the ground. One Malkiat Singh, who lived in a house nearby, had arrived and saw this occurrence, so that the four persons, who witnessed the occurrence, were Malkiat Singh, Gurdial Singh, Sarvjit Singh and Gian Kaur. Gurdial Singh, leaving others to look after the dead body of his father, went with Lal Singh, Lambardar, to the Police Station which was situated at a distance of about three miles and lodged the First Information Report at about 9.30 p. m. on the same day. The case was then investigated. A post mortem examination on the corpse of Gurdarshan Singh was performed and articles like pellets, bloodstained cardboard pieces lying near the scene of occurrence were taken into their possession by the Police. Both the appellant and his father, Ajit Singh, were thereafter prosecuted for this murder. The appellant was charged with being the principal offender in committing the murder, while his father, Ajit Singh, was prosecuted for having participated in the murder with the common intention that Gurdarshan Singh should be killed. However before the trial could take place in the Court of Session, Ajit Singh was murdered and, for that murder, Gordial Singh was prosecuted.

(2.) In the case, at the first stage before the Court of the Committing Magistrate, both Ajit Singh and the appellant took the plea that neither of them was responsible for committing the murder of Gurdarshan Singh, and contended themselves with denying the correctness of the prosecution case'' In the Court of Session, when the appellant was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he came forward with the plea that it was his father Ajit Singh, who actually fired and killed Gurdarshan Singh. He pleaded that he himself was not present in this village at all and was, in fact that day staying at Phillaur. He, thus, put forward the plea of alibi.

(3.) The Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the four prosecution witnesses mentioned above, and, after discussing the defence, evidence given on behalf of the appellant in support of his pleas, rejected that evidence. He did not accept the defence evidence that Gurdarshan Singh was fired at by Ajit Singh and he also held that the evidence given on behalf of the appellant to prove his alibi could not be relied upon. On these findings, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death for committing the murder of Gurdarshan Singh. When the case name up before the High Court, the High Court briefly examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held that their evidence was reliable. The High Court did not, however, go into the defence evidence, because the counsel appealing for the appellant, according to the High Court, frankly admitted that there was no substance in it. On this view, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed his sentence of death.