Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J.

Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa has been held guilty on two counts by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, i e. u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and u/s 27 of the Arms Act in two trials emanating from the same occurrence and the same set of facts. The Appellant has challenged hit convictions in both these cases through these two appeals No. 777(sic) of 1978 and 778 of 1978 which we propose to dispose of by one common judgment.

The details of the occurrence as given out by Gurjit Singh PW 5 are that on 31st October, 1977, he had gone to Patiala in order to purchase some articles for domestic use and on his return to village Harpalpur, he boarded a local bus from there at about 6 (sic) P M when the bus reached village Mithumajra,(sic) Hazura Singh deceased and Pal Singh PW-6 his co-villager, also boarded the but Hazura Singh sat by the side of a window. The bus then stopped at village Kauli where-from the Appellant and his four co accused, since acquitted, got into the bus When the bus stopped at the next bus stop of village Man-dauli at about 7.00 P.M. all the five accused got down and the co accused of the Appellant raised a lalkara that "Hazara Singh has been trapped " Gurdeep Singh Appellant took out his pistol and placing its barrel close to the window pane, tired(sic) a shot at Hazura Singh which hit the right seapula of the latter. The P Ws i.e Gurjit Singh and Pal Singh and other passengers raised an alarm and the accused made good their escape from the spot. These P Ws took Hazara Singh in the same bus to Rajpura and sent a message from bus stop Mandauli itself through a passenger to the family members of Hazura Singh in village Harpalpur about the Incident Hazura Singh was got admitted in A. P. jain Hospital, Rajpura, and Gurjit Singh went to police station where he lodged the F.I R. at 8.20 P.M. The motive for the crime as alleged in the F.I.R. is that Kartar Singh, co accused of the Appellant, and Hazura Singh were involved in civil litigation and all of them were also being procesded against under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the deceased. Sub Inspector Gurbachan Singh PW 17, during the course of investigation took into possession glass pane from the window of the bus with a bullet hole in it after removing the same from the vehicle vide memo Ex. PJ. On 10th of November, 1977, he took into possession a phial containing a pellet in a scaled parcel vide memo Ex. PL Country made pistol was also taken into possession on 11th November, 1927,(sic) as a result of a divclosure(sic) statement made by the Appellant Hazura Singh died in Rajindra Hospital. Patiala, on 9th November, 1-7.(sic) The cause of death according to Dr Mohan Kishore Batish(sic) PW-?.(sic) who conducted the post mortem examination, was sheck and haemorrhage due to the injury to right axillary artery. Dr. G S. Ghambir also deposed that the right arm of the deceased hed to be amputated. During the cross-examination, this witness admitted that shock may also have been produced by amputation and from haemorrhage he meant the collection of blood inside or outside the body.

When examined u/s 33(sic) Code of Criminal Procedure Appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and pleaded false implication

At the trial, the above narrated prosecution version was supposed by Gurjit Singh PW-5, Pal Singh PW 6 and Kartar Singh PW-10 to the hilt. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the Appellant to justify the inference of any special interest of these P Ws in Hazura Singh and bias against the Appellant. The evidence of these P Ws stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence with regard to the motive i e the pendency of the security proceedings has clearly been establisned by Karam Chand, Ahaimad of the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, PW. 8 and A S I. Kartar Singh, PW 6.

Before us three contentions have been raised by Shri Ajmer Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant, namely (i) the presence of the P Ws at the time of occurrence is doubtful ; (ii) identify of the accused has not been established ; and (iii) the death of the deceased not the direct result of the injury alleged to have been caused to him. So far us first two contentions are concerned, we have no he sitation(sic) in rejecting the same outright. It is in evidence that these P Ws were travelling in the same bus with the decased(sic) and they cannot be branded as chance witnesses on this account Gurdeep Singh Appellant was straightway named in the F.I.R. as the assailant and the F.I.R was lodged within less than 11/2 hours from the time of occurrence. Ail the P Ws claimed to have known the Appellant much earlier to the date of occurrence. No circumstances have been shown by the learned Counsel which could possibly belie(sic) this stand of the eye-witnesses So far at the nature of the offence is concerned, it is in the evidence of Dr. G. S. Ghambir PW 3 that on 1st November, 1977, at 5.30 A M the deceased was operated upon by him on the diagnosis of fire arm wounds of the right scapular region On 2th of November, 1977, as guillotine amputation of the right arm had to be performed and the patient expired on 9th November, 1977 at 5.05 P.M. without regaining con-siousness(sic) According to him, after the amputation, the injured could not revive and the amputation had to be done as the patient had developed toxemia. He, however ultimatey died of Cardiac arrest, Thus, it is apparent that the death is the direct result of the firearm injury caused to him by the Appellant.

In view of the discussion above, we do not and any merit in either of these appeals and dismiss the same.