SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 filed by Surjit Singh and Criminal Appeal Nos.97-DB of 2002 and 114-DB of 2002 filed by Bal Karan Singh, Jas Karan Singh and Labh Singh, against the order dated 10.12.2001 sentencing them for the culpable homicide of Rajinder Singh @ Raja son of Sukhmander Singh, resident of village Mangat Ker.

(2.) Sikander Singh, uncle of deceased Rajinder Singh @ Raja has lodged complaint Ex.PH/1 on 7.6.1996 at about 9.20 AM in respect of occurrence leading to the death of Rajinder Singh @ Raja at about 2.00 AM. He has stated that his son Sukhbir Singh and his nephew Rajinder Singh @ Raja had gone to motor in their field to irrigate Jantar crop (inferior quality of rice) at about 10.00 PM. At about 2.00 AM, he asked his son and nephew to bring a cot to sit at the motor, which is on the way. It was moon- light night. When they came out from the room of the motor with the cot and reached near the uncultivated small mound, 3-4 persons emerged out from behind the uncultivated small mound. He came running from his field, which is at a distance of 1 1/2 Killa and found that Bal Karan Singh and Jas Karan Singh @ Jassa Singh sons of Raj Singh, are armed with gandassa and dang respectively, Labh Singh armed with gandassa and Surjit Singh, resident of Village Mahuana, Fazilka, armed with gandhali. Surjit Singh said that they would not be allowed to go, as his (Rajinder Singh @ Raja) father had become a witness in Eucalyptus Trees' case. Within his sight, they all started causing injuries with their respective weapons to his nephew Rajinder Singh @ Raja. His son Sukhbir Singh rushed towards him making noise. He also raised alarm. Thereafter, all the aforesaid four persons fled away with their respective weapons, after causing injuries to his nephew Rajinder Singh @ Raja. When he came near to the place of occurrence, he saw that injuries have been caused on the head and on the chin below the mouth of his nephew. He (Rajinder Singh @ Raja) breathed his last. After leaving his son Sukhbir Singh with the dead body, he came to the village and informed his brother Sukhmander Singh. Then both of them narrated the whole story of Manga Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. Thereafter, he alongwith Manga Singh, had gone to the Police Station for lodging of the report. Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 3 On the basis of such statement, ruqa was sent by ASI Prem Singh for registration of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. In pursuance of such ruqa, FIR Ex.PH/2 was lodged at 9.45 AM. The special report was sent to the Magistrate at 11.30 AM. The inquest report is Ex.PJ. As per inquest report, the dead body was found in the fields near the motor, in the area of village Mangat Ker. The police also seized earth from the place of occurrence and also recovered weapons of offence from accused Bal Karan Singh, Jas Karan Singh and Labh Singh, on the basis of their disclosure statements Exs.PAA, PT and PS respectively. In pursuance of such disclosure statements, the gandassi was recovered on 20.6.1996 vide recovery memo Ex.PBB from Bal Karan Singh. Dang was recovered on 19.6.1996 vide recovery memo Ex.PX from Jas Karan Singh. Gandassa was recovered on 19.6.1996 vide recovery memo Ex.PV from Labh Singh. All the aforesaid recoveries were effected in the presence of Kaur Singh S/o Tara Singh and ASI Prem Singh.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case has examined Dr. R.K.Goria (PW-3), who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajinder Singh @ Raja. As per his statement, injury Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are incised wounds and are simple in nature, whereas injury No.3 could be caused by fall. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 could be due to one weapon. Injury Nos.9 and 10 are on the back side and on the right side of the head. Injury Nos.8 and 9 are possible by fall. He has deposed that incised wounds on the dead body of Rajinder Singh @ Raja could be caused by sharp side of gandassa as well as gandhali and lacerated wounds possibly could be caused by the blunt side of gandassa, gandhali and by dang. The prosecution has also examined Sikander Singh, author of the FIR as PW-6 and his son Sukhbir Singh as (PW-7), in support of its case. PW-12 is SI Crl. Appeal No.96-DB of 2002 4 Prem Singh, Investigating Officer, whereas PW-11 is Mukhtiar Singh, is the Officer, who has effected recoveries of the weapons of offence. After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, convicted all the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence rendered by the learned trial Court, the accused/appellants are in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has set up a motive of annoyance of the appellants on account of Sukhmander Singh, father of the deceased Rajinder Singh @ Raja, being a witness in a case pertaining to illegal selling of Eucalyptus Trees. Relying upon the testimony of Inspector Gian Chand (PW-9), who has produced FIR (Ex.PR), it is contended that none of the appellants are the accused in the aforesaid case. Therefore, once the prosecution fails to prove the motive as propounded, the entire prosecution case must fall to the ground.