Mohinder Singh vs State of UT Chandigarh

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

Baldev Singh complainant (PW5) was posted as an Estate Officer in Bathinda whereas his mother Sewa Kaur deceased, his wife Surinder Jit Kaur and his children were residing in H.No. 1003, Sector 40B, Chandigarh. On 6th November, 1993, Baldev Singh accompanied by Narinder Singh (PW6) and one Amar Singh came to Chandigarh to attend a party hosted by one Paramjit Singh at the Lake Club, Chandigarh. They returned to Sewa Kaur''s house late at night but were awakened at about 6.15 a.m. on the following day i.e. 7th November, 1993 on hearing loud shrieks coming iron the rear courtyard of the house. Baldev Singh rushed towards that side and saw the appellant stabbing his mother Sewa Kaur with a knife in her chest and abdomen. Narinder Singh was also awakened by the noise and he too rushed to the place of incident and, on seeing the two, the appellant scaled over the back wall of the house and fled from the scence. Baldev Singh and Narinder Singh chased the appellant and were joined by a police party near the school in Sector 40B. The appellant was apprehended by ASI Swaran Singh (PW7) while he was still holding the dagger in his hand. He was then brought back to the house. Meanwhile, Gurdial Singh Sub Inspector also reached the house on receiving information on wireless and recorded the statement of Baldev Singh and on its basis the formal first information report Exhibit PQ was registered under Section 307/459 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sector 39 at 8.30 a.m. Sewa Kaur died soon thereafter. A challan was thereafter filed against the appellant in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. He was thereafter charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial.

The prosecution examined in support of its case, inter alia, P.W. 1 Dr. Jagjeev Kumar who had conducted the post mortem examination on the deadbody; P.W. 5 Baldev Singh and P.W. 6 Narinder Singh, the two eye witnesses; P.W. 7 ASI Sarwan Singh who had apprehended the accused; P.W. 10 Sher Singh, the shopkeeper, from whom the appellant had purchased the dagger some time earlier; P.W. 11 Amarjeet Singh son of Baldev Singh (PW5) who had seen the appellant running away after having caused the injuries to the deceased and the Investigating Officer Gurdial Singh, P.W.15.

The prosecution case was then put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied the allegations that had been made against him and pleaded that he had been hired by Sewa Kaur as a domestic servant a few days before the incident, and on the day in question when he entered the house at about 5.30 a.m. he had heard her shrieks and on rushing towards that direction had seen a person stabbing her with a dagger and after seeing him, that person fled from the scene and when he had seen Baldev Singh and Narinder Singh reaching the place, he had given chase to the culprit with an intention to catch him but he had instead been taken into custody by ASI Sarwan Singh and roped in for murder.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of Baldev Singh and Narinder Singh was absolutely reliable and as a matter of fact the presence of these two witnesses had been admitted even by the defence. The Court also found that the accused had admitted his presence at the scene of occurrence and the defence version put up by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not worthy of credence. The Court also held that the evidence of Inspector Gurdial Singh appeared to be above board and did not suffer from any infirmity. The Court also opined that in the light of the fact that the eye witness account was without blemish and the appellant had been caught red handed while committing the murder, the absence of any motive for the crime appeared to be of no consequence and having held as above convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo for a further period of three months. Hence this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the respondentState. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with their assistance. No cogent reasons have been spelt out as to why the evidence of the two eyewitnesses Baldev Singh and Narinder Singh should not be believed, the more so it stands admitted by the defence that they were present in the house in question at the time of the murder. The evidence of these two witnesses is further corroborated by the evidence of Amarpreet Singh P.W. 11 who saw the appellant running away from the place of the incident. We have also gone through the medical evidence and that the prosecution version that the injuries have been caused by a dagger is clearly borne out. A perusal of the evidence of Dr. Jagjeev Kumar (PW1) shows as many as six stab injuries on the person of the deceased and this doctor clearly opined that the murder of weapon Exhibit P.1 could have caused the said injuries.

The defence version on the face of it is unrealistic and need not be given any importance in the light of the clearout evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the present case. We therefore find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.