Bakshish Singh and Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 05.10.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar against the conviction and sentence of Bakshish Singh son of Tara Singh and Shamsher Singh son of Bakshish Singh. The learned trial Court convicted Bakshish Singh u/s 302 IPC for the murder of Harpal Singh, Daljit Singh and Rachpal Singh and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the commission of offence u/s 302/34 IPC and also was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Shamsher Singh was also convicted for the murder of Rachhpal Singh and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants were also convicted u/s 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Satnam Singh son of Bakshish Singh was acquitted by the learned trial Court.

The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PS of Sukhchain Singh given to Kuldip Singh ASI at village Vanike on 12.10.1998 at 4:15 am. Sukhchain Singh has stated, that he is a resident of village Sehora. His brother was elected as Sarpanch. Bakshish Singh and his sons Sukhchain Singh and Satnam Singh helped the defeated candidate Malook Singh. On 12.10.1998 at about 6 pm, Rachpal Singh Sarpanch and Harpal Singh of village Basarka and Joginder Singh were going to the fields on a tractor for ploughing the land of Sukhchain Singh. Sukhchain Singh had taken some land of the Wakf Board on lease and had been cultivating the land for six months. Satnam Singh was coming behind on bicycle. When the complainant party reached near the gate of the house of Bakshish Singh, there Shamsher Singh and Bakshish Singh were standing. They stopped the complainant party and told them that they had elected the Sarpanch by cheating and they will not allow him to function. Then a quarrel erupted, on which Sukhchain Singh and Joginder Singh separated both the parties. Thereafter, Sukhchain Singh and others started ploughing the fields. At about 12:30 am they were ploughing the fields near the house of Bakshish Singh and Harpal Singh was driving the tractor, Daljit Singh had brought tea for them. Sukhchain Singh alongwith his brother Rachpal Singh and Joginder Singh were standing by the side of the fields. Satnam Singh shouted telling Bakshish Singh, his father that they have come near the house to plough the fields and they should be killed by shooting at them. Bakshish Singh with his double barrel .12 bore gun and Shamsher Singh with a belt of bullets in his hands came towards the complainant party. An electric bulb was on. On coming close, Bakshish Singh fired a shot which hit Daljit Singh and the other shot hit Harpal Singh. Both fell down. Shamsher Singh took the gun from Bakshish Singh and after reloading it, he fired at Sarpanch Rachpal Singh. Rachpal Singh also fell down. Thereafter,firing continued for some time and the remaining members of the complainant party took shelter behind the wall. The grudge of the accused party was that Bakshish Singh, who was a former Sarpanch was jealous that Rachpal Singh had become the Sarpanch of the village.

On the basis of the statement, FIR Ex.PS/2 was recorded on 12.10.98 at 5:50 am and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 6:30 am.

The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. Ashok Chanana PW1, C Harpal Singh PW2, LC Bachittar Singh PW3, Sampuran Singh PW4, Meharban PW5, C Sukhdev Singh PW6, HC Darbara Singh PW7, HC Gurdial Singh PW8, Rajinder Singh PW9, Sukhchain Singh PW10, Joginder Singh PW11, SI Lakhwinder Singh PW12, Jagir Singh PW13 and Inspector Kuldip Singh as PW14.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the first occurrence had taken place at 6 pm when the complainant party went in front of the house of appellant Bakshish Singh. Bakshish Singh, as per the prosecution, has stated that they (complainant party) had become Sarpanch and the street in front of his house was still a kacha street. He would not let them perform the duty of Sarpanch. This assertion made by the complainant party does not have any bearing on the main case, as the first occurrence had taken place at 6 pm.

Occurrence had taken place at 12:30 am in the night when the complainant party came near the house of the appellants. They raised a lalkara and started firing. Nobody ploughs his field at 12:30 in the night, especially when the land is situated right in front of the house of the party, which they had a dispute with.

The motive for the commission of offence was the Panchayat elections, which had taken place 5/6 months earlier. In between this period, nothing had happened. It is alleged that appellants had helped Malook Singh who had lost the elections but nothing has come on record to show that appellants and Malook Singh were in the same party. The main occurrence had taken place after six hours. The land is in front of the house of the appellants. In the siteplan Ex. PAA, firing had taken place from mark A and mark B. Point A and B are outside the gate of the appellants party. The house of the complainant''s is also nearby. Occurrence infact had taken place in the street when the complainant party started ploughing the land. Complainant party provoked the appellants to the occurrence. At the most, an offence u/s 304-A IPC is made out against the appellants if not acquittal.

Site plan Ex. PAA is a very important document. Rishi Ram, who would have given the correct version as to where the appellants or the complainant party was standing and especially when the case is of cross version, was not examined and was given up.

Appellant Bakshish Singh gave the first version to the police which is Ex. DA/1. Investigation has been unfair and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.

Eight empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence. In document Ex. PCC, five empties are matching, three empties could not be verified.

Learned Counsel for the State has argued that the FIR is prompt. Both the parties have admitted the occurrence. The complainant party had come to plough the land which they had on lease for the past 5/7 years taken from the Wakf Board. Mark 1 is the place where the tractor is shown in document Ex. DB is in fields and not near the street. The tractor was ploughing the fields.

No fire arms were recovered from the complainant party. There are no bullet or pallet marks on the wall of the house of the appellants party. If the complainant party was armed, they would have fired at the appellants party if not to defend themselves. The street in front of the house of the appellants party is a common street. Even if for arguments sake, we take that the complainant party was in the street, then also they were standing in a street which was common to all.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

Both the parties have admitted the occurrence. Appellant Bakshish Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C to the answer to question No. 22 stated as under:

I am innocent. Infact, on the day of occurrence, the deceased party deliberately came with tractor and started ploughing my manure and path to my house. They raised lalkaras and extremely provocative abuses. They were armed with fire-arms and fired towards my house. I alone fired in right of private defence of person and property. My sons were not in the house. I gave my version to the police. Police helped other party as they are very influential.

He has caterogically stated in his statement that the complainant party started firing towards his house. But the investigating Officer SI Lakhwinder Singh PW12 did not find any gun shot marks on the house of the appellants. The story of right to private defence as stated by appellant Bakshish Singh is not truthful.

Both Sukhchain Singh PW10 and Joginder Singh PW11 are natural witnesses. They had come alongwith the deceased to plough that piece of land which they had taken on lease for the past 5/7 years from the Wakf Board. Mr. Meharban, Rent Controller PW5 has placed on record order/document Ex.PN wherein it has been stated that the land has been given on lease to the complainant party.

The promptness with which, the FIR Ex.PS/2 came into existence goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. The occurrence had taken place on 12.10.1998 at 12:30 am. Statement (Ex. PS) of Sukhchain Singh PW10 was recorded at 4:15 am on the same day by PW14 Kuldip Singh and the formal FIR Ex. PS/2 came into existence on the same day at 5:50 am. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 6:30 am. The name of the accused are mentioned, weapon of offence are mentioned. It has been stated in the FIR by complainant Sukhchain Singh PW10 that he alongwith Joginder Singh PW11 who also witnessed the occurrence, were present when the occurrence took place.

Occurrence had taken place in the month of October i.e. the time when the peddy crop is cut and the land is prepared for sowing of wheat. Ploughing the land at 12:30 in the night is not something unusual at that time. Agriculturists do plough the land in the night. In siteplan Ex.PAA, it is clear that mark A and B is outside the gate of the appellants party from where the firing had taken place. The tractor of the deceased is in the Wakf Board land.

The motive for the commission of the offence was that the appellants were angry with the complainant party that Sarpanch Rachpal Singh had been elected the Sarpanch of the village but deliberately the street in front of their house was not being metalled by the Sarpanch because the appellants were in the opposite party.

Dr. Ashok Chanan PW1 examined appellant Bakshish Singh, Shamsher Singh and the acquitted accused Satnam Singh and prepared their MLRs Ex. PA, Ex. PB and Ex. PG. Injuries on the person of the appellants are superfluous. There were no gun shot injuries though the case of the appellants is that the complainant party fired at them. Those injuries are given with a friendly hand.

We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court.

Appeal is dismissed.