KULWAHT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULWANT Singh, who was tried along with his co-accused Piara Singh, his brother, and Bhira Singh, his son, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, stands convicted for life under Section 302, I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default whereof to further undergo R. I. for six months as also for three years under Section 201, I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof to further undergo R. I. for one month vide order of conviction and sentence dated February 16, 1993, passed by Mrs. Bakhshish Kaur, Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. It is this order which has been challenged in the present appeal by him.

(2.) THE information with regard to occurrence leading to missing of Chanan Singh son of Harnam Singh, whose dead body was later found, was reported by his wife Juginder Kaur on May 14, 1991 at 5 p. m. , on the basis whereof a case came to be registered under Section 364, I. P. C. against all the accused as she entertained a doubt that it is these people, who were instrumental in doing away with Chanan Singh, her husband. Her statement was recorded by Sardul Singh, A. S. I. , before whom she stated that she was resident of village Bhambri and had four sons, namely, Gurdev Singh, Hardev Singh, Gurvail Singh and Harjit Singh and three daughters, namely, Rajvinder Kaur, Harjit Kaur and Amarjit Kaur. About 15-16 years back, Harjit Kaur was married to Swaran Singh son of S. Gurnam Singh, resident of village Bharath. Harjit Kaur had three sons, namely, Nachhattar Singh, Sakkattar Singh and Major Singh and one daughter Ramanjit. About three years ago, Swaran Singh had expired. About 1 1/2 years ago, Harjit Kaur was killed by the terrorists at village Bharath. She had brought the children of Harjit Kaur in her village for bringing them up. On the morning of May 12, 1991, her husband Chanan Singh had gone to the tubewell at village Bharath for irrigating the land. On the same day at about 4 p. m. , her Dhota (dauther's son) Sakattar Singh, resident of village Bharath had gone there with the meal for her husband. On his return at about 6 p. m. , he told her that he had served the meal. On May 13, 1991, at about 6. 30 a. m. , Nachhattar Singh had gone to serve the meal at the tubewell but he did not return. Avtar Singh son of Naranjan Singh, Jat, resident of Bhambri, who was related to her as her JATHIA, came to her house and told that Chanan Singh was not present at the tubewell. On receipt of this information, all the family members and she searched for Chanan Singh in the fields and in his relations but he could not be traced anywhere. She suspected that Sant Singh, Piara Singh, Kulwant Singh sons of Harnam Singh, Buha Singh son of Sant Singh and Bheera Singh son of Kulwant Singh, Jat, residents of Bharath, who were brothers and nephews of her son- in-law, Swaran Singh, in connivance with each other had kidnapped her husband with an intention to kill him because they wanted to forcibly occupy the land measuring about 5 1/2 acres belonging to her son-in- law. Her husband himself used to cultivate that land and they were taking ill of it. Since no clue of her husband had been found, she had gone to the police station on the day, the FIR was recorded, and reported that Chanan Singh was missing from the intervening night of 12 and 13th May, 1991. Accordingly, Sardul Singh, A. S. I. registered a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Piara Singh, Constable No. 2177 carried the special report which was received by Shri G. S. Sandhu, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Batala on May 15, 1991 at 7. 15 a. m.

(3.) THE appellant and his co-accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while admitting relationship inter se, denied their participation in causing the death of Chanan Singh in any manner whatsoever. They, however, led no defence. After resultant trial, whereas his co-accused, namely, Piara Singh and Bhira Singh were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt, appellant was convicted in the manner fully detailed above.