Jagtar Singh vs State of Punjab

B.S. Nehra, J.

Ajmer Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sanjay Kumar were charged on 14.3.1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'') for being members of an unlawful assembly. Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sanjay Kumar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Amardeep Singh; and Ajmer Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code. Thereafter they were tried for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge, Mrs. Bimla Gautam, vide her judgment dated 22.8.1990 found that the charges against Ajmer Singh and Sanjay alias Kala had not been proved and hence acquitted them. However, the learned Judge convicted Baljit Singh, Jagtar Singh and Gurmit Singh, appellants under Section 30, read with Section 34 of the Code, after acquitting them of the charges under Sections 147 and 148 of the Code, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine, they were further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Criminal Appeal No. 266DB of 1990 has been preferred by Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh and Gurmit Singh. Gurmit Singh, appellant has also separately filed Criminal Appeal No. 273DB of 1990 assailing the same judgment.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and have also gone through the record of the case.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the delivery of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate has been inordinately delayed by the prosecution and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the chances of fabrication of a false case against the appellants as a result of consultations and deliberations cannot be ruled out. Undoubtedly, the endorsement on the first information report Exhibit PD by the Ilaqa Magistrate shows that it was received by him at 10.49 p.m. The occurrence had taken place at about 2 p.m. and the first information report Exhibit PD had been lodged by PW2 Jaspreet Singh at about 3.15 p.m. The point to be considered is whether the prosecution has been able to satisfactorily explain the alleged delay in the delivery of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate and whether there is any other evidence on the record to rule out the scope for the contention that the intervening time may have been used by the prosecution for fabricating a false version against the appellants.

PW9 Constable Avtar Singh''s affidavit had been tendered by the prosecution to explain that the special report had been delivered through him to the Ilaqa Magistrate. In his crossexamination, he has deposed that he had started from Morinda at about 4.45 p.m. for reaching Ropar, which is about 27 kilometres away. He had reached the house of the Ilaqa Magistrate at about 6.15 p.m. He added that the Magistrate was not at his residence and he had handed over the special report to his (Magistrate) wife and on return, he told his officer that he had handed over the special report at the residence of the Magistrate. The criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants is two fold, viz., Daily Diary entry Exhibit DE recorded at 7.50 p.m. in connection with the delivery of the special report does not show that PW9 Avtar Singh had delivered the special report to the wife of the Magistrate (it only shows that it was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate) and that the prosecution has not examined the Ilaqa Magistrate to establish that he was absent from this house when Constable Avtar Singh had left the special report at his house at 6.15 p.m. In our opinion, both these contentions are untenable. No fault can be found with the daily entry, copy Exhibit DB, which unmistakably shows that arrival of the police official on return from Ropar, when he reported to his officer after the special report had been delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate. Once this conclusion is reached and indeed we have no hesitation in taking this view, the second contention that the prosecution should have examined the Ilaqa Magistrate to explain the delivery of the special report at his house, while he was away from his house loses significance. Thus the statement of PW9 Avtar Singh establishes beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the special report had reached the Ilaqa Magistrate by 6.15 p.m. and it is for this reason that the aforesaid daily diary entry Exhibit DB was recorded at 7.50 p.m. There is also additional material available on the record to show that there could have been no occasion for the prosecution to fabricate evidence against the appellants as has been sought to be urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants. In this connection it is necessary to refer to the request Exhibit PB made by Section House Officer Ajaib Singh of Police Station Morinda on 4.11.1989 to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ropar, for conducting autopsy on the dead body of Amardeep Singh deceased. The affidavit Exhibit PK of Head Constable Jagan Nath shows that he and Jarnail Singh had taken the dead body on 4.11.1989 to Ropar for conducting the post mortem on the dead body of Amardeep Singh and PW4 Sub Inspector Balwani Rai has testified that the dead body had been despatched from the Hospital to Ropar, in a minitruck at about 6 p.m. on 4.11.1989. Thus all relevant papers had been taken by Head Constable Jagan Nath along with the dead body at 6 p.m. on 4.11.1989. It is significant that the affidavit Exhibit PK of Head Constable Jagan Nath has remained unchallenged inasmuch as he was not crossexamined by the learned Counsel for the appellants before the trial Court. In other words, the evidence regarding the despatch of dead body for post mortem examination on 4.11.1989 after the first information report had been registered at about 3.15 p.m. has not been contested by the appellants before the trial Court. There was, therefore, no scope for fabricating a false version against the appellants. The contention that there was any delay in the despatch of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate is, thus, wholly unmerited. We have no doubt in our mind that the special report was delivered by the prosecution to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 4.11.1989 at about 5.15 p.m. and there mere fact that the endorsement was made by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 10.49 p.m. on his return to his house cannot justify the contention advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the earlier time was used by the prosecution for the alleged false implication of the appellants. Besides, the contention regarding the alleged delay in the delivery of the special report could assume significance only if the witnesses to the ocular account were found to be unreliable. In this context it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pala Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1973 Criminal Appeals Reporter (SC) 25, in which it was held as under :

"Section 157, Cr.P.C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of such offence. This is really designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under Section 59. But when we find in this case that the FIR was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable."

We have carefully gone through the entire evidence on the record including the sworn testimony of PW2 Jaspreet Singh, informant, and PW3 Randhir Singh, the second eyewitness. In our view, the prosecution version that the appellants had dealt the fatal blows to the deceased, stands fully established from their testimony.

PW2 Jaspreet Singh has described himself to be a friend of the deceased and according to him, PW3 Randhir Singh is the cousin of the deceased. Both of them accompanied by Amardeep Singh deceased were standing in front of Namdev Street in Morinda when the appellants suddenly reached there in a Fiat car. Soon thereafter the appellants pursued Amardeep Singh deceased and caused injuries on his person with their respective weapons. The learned Counsel for the appellants attempted to urge that the presence of these witnesses at the time of the occurrence is untrustworthy, for, so argued the learned Counsel, neither of them belongs to Morinda. It is true that PW2 Jaspreet Singh belongs to village Kanjlan and the house of PW3 Randhir Singh is situated in the fields at a distance of about two kilometres from the place of occurrence. The point to be considered is whether these witnesses have explained the reason for their presence with the deceased when the occurrence took place. Once it is found that their presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence has been satisfactorily explained, they would be the natural witnesses to the ocular version. On careful scrutiny of their evidence, we have come to the conclusion that their presence of the spot cannot be doubted on any ground. In this context it is necessary to refer to the evidence of PW2 Jaspreet Singh, who deposed that his village is at a distance of about one kilometre though according to PW9 Inspector Ajaib Singh, the distance between Morinda and village Kanjla is about five kilometres. According to PW2 Jaspreet Singh, he had come to Morinda to purchase medicine for his headache and has added that there is neither any medical practitioner nor a chemist shop in his village. Thus his presence in Morinda on that day is satisfactorily explained by the fact that he had come to purchase medicine. PW3 Randhir Singh has stated that his house is situated opposite to Anaj Mandi of Morinda and the Anaj Mandi is in the town and it is situated near the Morinda bypass. He has built his house in his field in front of the Anaj Mandi. On the day of occurrence he had come to Morinda town to get the relevant entry of the revenue record in his name but he could not get the same. On return he happened to meet the deceased. He was talking to the deceased to go in the PostGraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (Chandigarh) to see his (deceased) sister lying admitted in the Hospital there. Thus testimony of neither of these two witnesses to the ocular account can be termed to be implausible nor can it be held that they could not be present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. Neither of these witnesses has any hostility towards any of the appellants. The absence of strained relations between them on one side and the appellants on the other side rules out the possibility for these witnesses to make false statements against the appellants. Merely because PW2 Jaspreet Singh is a friend of the deceased and PW3 Randhir Singh is his cousin, it cannot be taken to mean that they are interested to falsely implicate the appellants. It is true that they did not intervene when the deceased was being belabored by the appellants but this circumstance cannot imply that they could not have been present on the spot at the time of the occurrence.

PW1 Dr. Pyare Lal, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Amardeep Singh deceased has described that injury No. 1 on the person of the deceased was covered by an adhesive plaster and similarly there was adhesive plaster on injuries No. 3 and 5 as well and the same was stained with blood. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the existence of adhesive plaster on the injuries of the deceased shows that the occurrence had taken place much earlier and that the deceased had been attended upon by some other doctor, who alone, so argued the learned Counsel, can explain the existence of the piece of adhesive plaster on the above descried three injuries. This circumstance was sought to be highlighted by the learned Counsel to urge that the occurrence had taken place much earlier and the prosecution story as regards the time of occurrence is, therefore, rendered doubtful and hence the prosecution case deserves to be thrown overboard on that score. We have no hesitation in repelling this contention. It is not improbable that some one might have applied pieces of adhesive plaster on some of the injuries of the deceased, which might be profusely bleeding, while Jaspreet Singh PW was away to the police station to lodge report leaving the deceased alone. It is true that the police did not record the statement of any one to explain the application of adhesive plaster prices on the injuries on the person of the deceased. Be that as it may, the omission on the part of the prosecution to record the factum of the application of the adhesive plastter on the injuries in the daily diary or otherwise by the police cannot be taken to mean that the occurrence had taken place much earlier or that the deceased had been attended upon by some other doctor before his removal to the Hospital much less can it be concluded on that basis that the prosecution has used the intervening period for fabricating a false version against the appellants.

The medical evidence of PW1 Dr. Pyare Lal fully corroborates the ocular version unfolded by PW2 Jaspreet Singh and PW3 Randhir Singh. According to PW1 Dr. Pyare Lal, the injuries on the person of the deceased were antemortem and these were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was almost immediate and between death and post mortem, it was within about twentyfour hours and that injuries No. 4 and 10 in his opinion could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further testified that the injuries, except the abrasions could be caused with sharp edged weapons, possibly Kirpan and knife and abrasion could be the result of rubbing against the hard surface. The evidence regarding the use of Kirpan and knife by the appellants, as stated by PW2 Jaspreet Singh and PW3 Randhir Singh, is thus fully corroborated by the medical evidence discussed hereinbefore. The occurrence having taken place in broad day light, there could have been no chance for the mistaken identity of the appellants. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Judge.

For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 266DB of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No. 273DB of 1990 fail and are hereby dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.