BALKAR SINGH Vs. STATEOFPUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Balkar Singh and one Rachhpal Singh alias Raju were charged under S. 302 Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Joginder Singh, who was undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the central Jail, Amritsar for a conviction under S. 307 Indian Penal Code by administering to him poisoned laddus and tea. The Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused of the charge under S. 302 but however convicted the appellant under S. 328 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years. The said conviction and sentence were confirmedby the High court and hence the present appeal by special leave by the appellant.

(2.) According to the prosecution the appellant and Rachhpal Singh were seen purchasing laddus and tea from a tea shop in front of the Central Jail at Amritsar on the afternoon of 26/04/1983 by Public Witness 6 Amar Singh. In order to enter the central Jail as a visitor, the appellant gave the name of the prisoners brother viz. Public Witness 3 Sukhdev Singh and thus managed to have an interview with Joginder Singh and pass on the laddus and tea to him. Soon after taking the laddus and tea, Joginder Singh became sick and began to vomit. He complained to the jail authorities and also to the doctors at the hospital, when he was taken for treatment, that he became sick immediately after taking the laddus and tea given to him by the visitor who had corne to see him in the jail. In spite of treatment being given to him, Joginder Singh died. The stomach contents were sent for chemical analysis and were found to contain Organo phosphorus poison and alcohol. During the investigation of the case the thumb mark affixed by the appellant in the visitors register kept in the jail was compared with his admitted thumb mark and found to be identical. Public Witness 3 Sukhdev Singh, the brother of Joginder Singh was examined and he categorically stated that he had not at ail gone to Amritsar on the day in question or sought for an interview with Joginder Singh in the central Jail.

(3.) The plea of the appellant was that it was true that he had affixed his thumb mark in the visitors register in the jail against the name of Sukdev Singh but he had done so only to oblige a person whom he had met at Amritsar and who gave his name and address and wanted an entry made on his behalf in the jail register to obtain an interview with Joginder Singh. The appellant denied having purchased laddus and tea along with Rachhpal Singh from the tea shop or having entered the jail and handing over the tea and eatables to Joginder Singh.