Manjit Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.—Gurdev Singh and his son Manjit Singh of Bhikhi have been tried by Shri K. S. Kauldhar Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda for having caused the death of Amar Chand and they have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of (sic) as well on 6-7-1988. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been attempted.

Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that Amar Chand and his son Shushil Kumar (PW 6) has been running a karyana shop at Bhikhi. On 12-2-1987 at mid-day Amar Chand the father went home for taking meals but did not return to the shop thereafter. A search continued. On 17-2-1987 a report was made about the missing father Amar Chand by his son at police station Bhikhi and it was recorded in daily diary. Thereafter on 27-2-1987 on the statement of Shushil Kumar the son, a formal FIR (Ex. PY) was registered wherein the complainant son had informed the police that a decree of Rs. 10,000/- which his father Amar Chand had obtained against Gurdev Singh from a Civil Court was still awaiting satisfaction and payment of outstanding instalment and he believed that Gurdev Singh and his son Manjit Singh abducted his father with the intention to cause his death. The story further goes that it was thereafter that Shri Sukhdev Singh the then S.H.O. police station Bhikhi along with Faqiria Sarpanch and several others took up investigation of the case. Gurdev Singh along with the hammer (Ex. PH) made an extra-judicial confession to Dr. Mangat Ram (PW 2) a medical practitioner of the town and thereafter he was produced before the police. Subsequently the dead body of Amar Chand was recovered at the instance of Gurdev Singh from the agricultural field of the brother of this accused. Bal Krishan (PW 4) of Bhikhi had noticed at 10/10.30 p.m. on 12-2-1987 Gurdev Singh along with his son Manjit Singh carrying some thing wrapped in a Khes and placed on the carrier of the bicycle. PW 5 Girdhari Lal a shop-keeper had seen Amar Chand talking with a loud voice with Gurdev Singh at the shop of the latter on 12-2-1987.

P.W. 1 Dr. Sat Pal Bansal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Amar Chand son of Mohan Lal Mahajan aged 60 years at 5.20 p.m. on 27-2-1987 and the injuries found on the person of the deceased were as under:--

There was incised wound 4 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. on the right side of vertex 7 c.m. above upper margin of the right orbit. Bone was exposed.

There was incised wound on the left side of vertex 3 c.m. from midline just anterior to the middle of vertex size 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. bone exposed.

Anterior to injury No. 2 there was a wound incised in nature situated at distance of 3 c.m. from injury No. 2 size 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. -- bone exposed.

There was wide spread discolouration blackish blue in colour. It involved the forehead right side temporal region extended on to the parietal and mostoid area. On dissection haemolysed blood in stage of putrefaction present in the soft tissue especially in the temporal region area. On opening the skull and dissection of temporal area there was fracture of underlying bone and bone was displaced towards the cranial cavity. The brain matter was putrified and it was in liquid state. On cutting the membranes started flowing out. The membranes were injured under the fractured bone.

The Medical Officer has opined that cause of death in this case was head injury. He has also opined that injury No. 1 could be caused with hammer Ex. PH.

P. W. 2 Dr. Mangat Ram is a registered medical practitioner and had been running his shop/clinic for the last 25/26 years in Bhikhi town and he had also been a member of the Panchayat for five years and thereafter he also remained a President of an association at Bhikhi and he has described in the trial court that Gurdev Singh came to his shop at 1 p.m. (on 27-2-1988) and narrated that Amar Chand had been demanding outstanding amount of the loan and for this purpose the creditor had come to him a fortnight earlier and this enraged him and he picked up a hammer and gave a blow with it. As a consequence Amar Chand fell down. His mouth was gagged so that he may not be able to utter or make a noise. His own son Manjit Singh also caused 3/4 kirpan blows on the person of Amar Chand and the floor of the premises was subsequently washed and the dead body was concealed behind a box for some time and later on after wrapping it into a khes it was carried on a bicycle at about 10/11 p.m. After listening to this extra-judicial confession made by Gurdev Singh he was taken to police station Bhikhi and produced before the S.H.O. On that day, Manjit Singh the co-accused was away to village Budhlada at the house of his father''s sister.

In this case a certified copy of the judgment of civil suit Amar Chand v. Gurdev Singh decided on 11-11-1985 by Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Mansa Ex. PZ/4 has been brought on record and it shows that Gurdev Singh had obtained a loan of Rs. 8,000/- and a kind of compromise decree was passed on 11-11-1985 and a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- was payable by Gurdev Singh by instalments but still considerable amount out of it was outstanding against Gurdev Singh accused and it was noticed by PW5 Girdhari Lal that Amar Chand was talking in a loud tone at the shop of Gurdev Singh, carpenter the accused in this case. This well established the motive.

On behalf of the accused this extra-judicial confession has been assailed and it has been argued that this Gurdev Singh now convict did not have any intimacy with PW 2 Dr. Mangat Ram and it was not expected that he would have gone and described the occurrence to a witness who himself has admitted in the cross examination that Gurdev Singh had come to his shop for the first time. Though there might not have been any privity between the accused and PW 2 Dr. Mangat Ram yet there appears to be no doubt that PW 2 Dr. Mangat Ram is a medical practitioner of the town and while the son was still concealing himself at the premises of his father''s sister in a neighbouring village this Gurdev Singh could not resist and he approached the aforesaid witness and described to him the occurrence. There was no particular reason for this witness to depose against the accused or to help the complainant or the police for alleged implication of Gurdev Singh. The fact that Dr. Mangat Ram was a witness against Sitara Lal Aggarwal and a couple of other persons who are kerosene dealers in a case u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in August, 1979 as shown from a certified copy of statement Ex. DD cannot be considered to be a factor that the evidence of this witness is unreliable.

In Narayan Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P., while referring to an extra-judicial confession it has been observed that considering extra-judicial confession as a very weak type of evidence was a wrong view of the law. It was not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It was further observed that it would depend on the nature-and circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witness who speaks to such a confession. PW 2 Dr. Mangat Ram who had no friendship with the deceased or the complainant or no enmity of any kind with the accused, and even otherwise is a person of status in the town. The evidence of this witness is held to be trust worthy.

There is also another piece of evidence inasmuch as PW 4 Bal Krishan of Bhikhi has deposed that late on the night of 12-2-1987 at 10 or 10.30 p.m. he had noticed Gurdev Singh and his son Manjit Singh carrying something wrapped in a khes on the carrier of a bicycle. However, the learned counsel for the accused has pointed out that this witness did not even whisper or talked of it to any one till 27-2-1987 though he was a collateral of the deceased and he must be knowing that a search for the deceased was going on since the afternoon of 12-2-1987. There is evidence of recovery of the hammer Ex. PH at the instance of Gurdev Singh accused as a consequence of a disclosure statement on 2-3-1987 in the presence of PW 3 Faquiria Singh Sarpanch of Bhikhi. This dead body was found concealed in the field of Balbir Singh brother of the accused Gurdev Singh as specified in the disclosure statement, Ex. PJ. There was no reason for PW 3 Faquiria Singh Sarpanch to depose falsely against the present convict-appellant and it was only when Gurdev Singh led the police party and the witnesses to the place of concealement that the dead body was recovered from the field of the brother of accused.

Gurdev Singh when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has only said that he has been implicated on suspicion because he owed money to Amar Chand which he could not pay being a poor man and that he was arrested on the evening of 26-2-1987 from his house after the recovery of the dead body. The version of the accused that he has been implicated on account of suspicion is not plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It shall be appropriate to summarise here the unrebutted evidence:

(1) A money decree existed against Gurdev Singh which remained dissatisfied. The deceased had been demanding its satisfaction.

(2) The deceased was last seen in this regard at the shop of Gurdev Singh Carpenter the debtor. All this relates to motive.

(3) There is extra-judicial confession made by Gurdev Singh before a respectable person of the town.

(4) Gurdev Singh made a disclosure statement and caused the recovery of dead body from the field of his own brother Balbir Singh in presence of Faquiria Singh Sarpanch.

(5) The hammer Ex. PH which was weapon of offence was produced by Gurdev Singh.

The conclusion is that in view of the circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial confession referred and discussed above the conviction of Gurdev Singh for an offence u/s 302 and Section 201 of the Penal Code is affirmed.

As regards Manjit Singh the son for want of sufficient evidence he is given benefit of doubt and his appeal is hereby accepted and he is acquitted of both the charges.