Gobind Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Arvind Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 8.6.2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Amritsar, whereby in case FIR No. 40 dated 26.2.1999 u/s 302/34 and 460/34 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, the accused-appellants have been convicted u/s 302/34 and 460/34 IPC, for having committed the murder of Padma, wife of complainant Satpal Singh. u/s 302/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months while u/s 460/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

In brief, the facts are that on the intervening night of 25/26.2.1999, complainant Satpal Singh along with his wife Padma were at their house while their son had gone to Pakistan in connection with business purposes. Since complainant''s wife Padma used to sleep late after prayer in the night in a separate room. At about 11 PM, he heard cries of his wife and when he wake up, he found the electric light of all the rooms and kitchen were on. In the kitchen, he saw accused Gobind Singh, who at one point of time had worked with him as a domestic servant, and accused More Singh who used to come to his house with said Gobind Singh. At that time, accused Mor Singh had pressed with his hand the mouth of Padma while accused Gobind Singh was strangulating her with the shawl put around her neck. He also saw in the hands of Gobind Singh a bag of green colour in which he had placed about Rs. 3/2 3/4 lacs, which he could not deposit in the bank on 25.2.1999 on account of strike. Both the accused then ran away with the bag and Satpal Singh tried to chase and catch hold of them but in vain. He further found that the accused had taken away a diamond ring of Padma. Thereafter, Satpal Singh informed on telephone about this incident to his relations upon which they also reached his house. Police was also informed on telephone by him pursuant to which SHO Baldev Singh reached his house where he recorded his statement Exhibit PA, which vide endorsement Exhibit PA/1 was sent to the police station where FIR, Exhibit PA/2 came to be registered. An inquest report on the dead body of Padma was prepared vide Exhibit PE. SI Pritpal Singh, a finger print expert, was called at the place of occurrence who developed finger prints from the bottle and glass which were found lying at the place of occurrence. The said bottle and glass were sealed in different parcels with the seal ''BS'' vide seizure memo. Exhibit PK, besides taking into possession other articles vide separate recovery memos. A rough site plan vide Exhibit PR of the place of occurrence was also prepared. Post-mortem examination on the dead-body was conducted. During this period, upon receipt of a wireless message, the police along with complainant Satpal Singh reached Kashmir Avenue where both the accused-appellants had been taken into custody by ASI Harbhajan Singh and upon being identified by Satpal Singh, the search of accused Gobind Singh was carried out and a bag containing Rs. 2,83,145/- was recovered from his possession which Satpal Singh identified and thereafter it was seized vide memo. Exhibit PB. Then upon search of accused More Singh, one gold ring fitted with diamonds was recovered from right pocket of his pant which was also seixed vide memo. PC. On application, Exhibit PJ, finger prints of both the accused-appellants were taken in the presence of Executive Magistrate and after being sealed, were sent to Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, and the finger prints developed from over the glass were found to be that of accused Gobind Singh.

Upon completion of investigation of the case, accused-appellant was challaned. After being produced in Court, they were charge-sheeted u/s 460 and 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused, examined PW-1 Satpal Singh, PW-2 Pabmit Singh, PW-3 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, PW-4 Mukhtiar Singh, PW-5 C.Amrik Singh, PW-6 R.K. Sharma, PW-7 Pritpal Singh, PW-8 Inderjit Singh, PW-9 ASI Harbhajan Singh and PW-10 Inspector Baldev Singh, and closed its evidence. In additional evidence, the prosecution tendered into evidence the report of Finger Print Bureau as Exhibit PZ/A and photographs as Exhibits P1 to P5.

Thereafter, accused-appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and put incriminating evidence appearing against them to which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, no evidence in defence was led by them.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Amritsar, vide his judgment and order held both the accused-appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal by them.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed including the names of actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye-witnesses, if any. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place at about 11 PM. PW-1 Satpal Singh, husband of the deceased, had informed the police on telephone and his statement was recorded at 1.20 AM and the formal FIR was recorded at 1.40 AM in Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. The said report was in the hands of Illaqa Magistrate at 3.30 AM on the same morning. The FIR is, thus, not delayed but rather prompt rules out every possibility of consultations and deliberations. The FIR contains the full narrative of the manner in which Padma deceased was strangulated with a Shawl (Exhibit P19) by accused-appellant Gobind Singh who was none else but the ex-employee of PW-1 Satpal Singh, husband of the deceased whereas More Singh, the other appellant, the associate of Gobind Singh, had gagged her mouth. Their names are duly mentioned in the FIR and also the parts played by them.

The entire case mainly rests upon the statement of PW-1 Satpal Singh, the husband of deceased Padma, which has been questioned by the defence. The corroboration is not a rule of law but one of the caution as an assurance. The evidence of a single witness may sustain sentence of death whereas host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support single charge of hurt. Thus, the case of the prosecution cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved only by one witness nor it can be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by the other witnesses. Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased at the dead of the night i.e. at 11 P.M and at that juncture of time, one cannot expect that the incident is to be witnessed by other independent witnesses. The presence of PW-1 one Satpal Singh at the place of occurrence is also natural. It cannot be a case of mistaken identity of the assailants, as already indicated above, Gobind Singh was the ex-employee of Satpal Singh while More Singh who was his associate, had been visiting him during the course of his employment in the house of the deceased. The defence has laid much stress that PW-1 Satpal Singh has stated that the occurrence had taken place in the kitchen but in cross-examination he stated that his wife was sitting in the lobby when this occurrence had taken place. Nothing hinges on this. It does not go to the root of the case. PW-1 Satpal Singh himself has stated that his wife used to sleep late after doing prayers and other work and on that day, he had gone to sleep at 9.30 p.m. This shows that when he had gone to sleep, his wife was sitting in the lobby and in this background, he might have stated that at the time of occurrence she was sitting in the lobby; otherwise he is very categoric that at 11 P.M after hearing the shrieks "Bachao Bachao" when he came out from his room, witnessed the occurrence in the kitchen itself. The recoveries from the accused appellants also corroborate the prosecution case. PW-1 Satpal Singh has stated that he had kept Rs. 2,83,145/- in a green bag in his house as he could not deposit the said amount on account of bank strike on 25.2.1999. He is very categoric that he also found the said bag missing and so as the gold ring fitted with diamond which his wife Padma used to wear having ''PU'' engraved on it. The important feature in this case is that both the accused appellants were arrested in the early morning on the night intervening 25/26.2.1999 and the said bag containing the cash was duly recovered from Gobind Singh whereas the ring was recovered from the possession of accused appellant More Singh. Both the articles were duly identified by PW-1 Satpal Singh. This circumstance of recovery adequately connects the accused appellants with the commission of crime.

The other corroborative fact is the medical evidence which again corroborates the case of the prosecution. PW-3 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Padma Uppal on 26.2.1999 and after having noticed the ligature mark on the neck and so as the Shawl, had opined that the cause of death was as a result of ante-mortem strangulation by ligature which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-7 SI Pritpal Singh had lifted the finger print impressions from the glass and bottle lying in the shelf of the kitchen. The finger prints of both the accused appellants were also taken on 1.3.1999 in the presence of PW-6 R.K. Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Amritsar. The report of the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Phillaur, Ex.PY indicates that the finger prints on the glass were found tallied with the finger prints of Gobind Singh, accused appellant. The statement of PW-1 Satpal Singh, the eye witness, which is duly corroborated by the above discussions, recoveries, medical evidence and the report of the Finger Prints Bureau show that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced.

Consequently, the appeal is without any merit. The same is hereby dismissed.

No other point has been urged.

In view of the discussion made in the earlier paras, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused-appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The appellants-accused have rightly been convicted. No interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed.