LAWS(P&H)-2006-1-157

MAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 30, 2006
MAKHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAKHAN Singh and his brother Karnail Singh were tried under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for having committed the murder of Amanprit on 11.8.1998. While Makhan Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Karnail Singh was convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Makhan Singh had filed Crl.A. No. 205-DB of 2000 and Karnail Singh had filed Crl.A. No. 206-DB of 2000 to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed upon them. Through the present judgment, we propose to dispose of both the appeals.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses are that Fauja Singh son of Mit Singh resident of village Phulke has three sons, Makhan Singh (appellant) was the eldest, Karnail Singh (appellant) was younger to him and the third youngest was Ajaib Singh (the complainant). All the three brothers reside in village Phulke and have a common tube well. While Karnail Singh was unmarried, Ajaib Singh had four daughters and one son, named, Amanprit, whose age on the date of occurrence was five years and six months.

(3.) AFTER leaving Kashmir Kaur near the dead body to guard the same, Ajaib Singh had gone to the Police Station in the company of Tarsem Singh Sarpanch to lodge the first information report. The special report in relation whereto reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at Batala at 12.45 p.m. On completion of the FIR, SI Natha Singh along with other police officials accompanied Ajaib Singh to village Phulke where he inspected the spot where the dead body of Amanprit was lying. He found Dalbir Singh and Kashmir Kaur present near the dead body; prepared inquest report Ex.PB in the presence of Ajaib Singh and Dalbir Singh as also the injury statement Ex.PC and thereafter forwarded the dead body along with request Ex.PD for getting the post mortem conducted thereon. He also lifted blood stained earth from the spot and made it into a sealed parcel and took the same into possession through recovery memo Ex.PE. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PF of the place of occurrence. He searched unsuccessfully for the accused. On 12.8.1998, Makhan Singh was arrested. He was interrogated on 13.8.1998 and made a disclosure statement in pursuance whereto he got recovered Kassi Ex.P1 from the field of Chari, which was taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PH. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PJ showing the place from where the Kassi was recovered. On 5.9.1998, he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and on 6.9.1998, he arrested Karnail Singh. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in Court against the two brothers. 6. On going through the papers sent up with the challan, the Ilaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions when he found that the offences disclosed were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 7. On going through the papers, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and as both of them pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence in support of its case. 8. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined Ajaib Singh PW1, Kashmir Kaur PW2, Sowinder Singh PW3, SI Natha Singh PW4, HC Surjan Singh PW5, Joginder Singh PW6, Dr. Sukhdip Singh PW7, LC Anand Singh PW8, Constable Ranjit Singh PW9 and Constable Gurdial Singh PW10. 9. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both the appellants denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. They, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence. After hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted and sentenced both the appellants as indicated hereinbefore. 10. We have heard Ms. Kamalpreet, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State. 11. On behalf of appellant Makhan Singh, it had been submitted by Ms. Kamalpreet that on 29.1.1999, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gurdaspur had sent the following information to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, about the mental condition of the appellant :-