Nachhatar Singh vs State of Punjab

D.S. Tewatia J.—For the murder of 83-year old Lala Jagat Narain, a former Minister of Punjab and Editor of daily newspapers ''Punjab Kesri'' and ''Hind Samachar'' published from Jalandhar in Hindi and Urdu respectively, and for the injuries to his driver Som Nath PW5, two persons, namely, Nachhatar Singh and Swaran Singh, were put on trial-Dalbir Singh, a third accused, having absconded-under Section 302 read with Section 34; and Section 307 read with Section 34; and Swaran Singh was put on trial u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted Swaran Singh of all the charges, but convicted Nachhatar Singh u/s 302 read with Section 34, India Penal Code, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Nachhatar Singh accused has challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No. 627-DB of 1983.

Through other Criminal appeals 15 DBA and 16 DBA of 1984, the State of Punjab has challenged the acquittal of Swaran Singh.

Ramesh Chand (Since deceased) son of the deceased Lala Jagat Narain has filed Criminal Revision No. 1591 of 1983 against the acquittal of Swaran Singh accused and for the enhancement of sentence passed on Nachhatar Singh accused to the extreme penalty of law.

Notices of Criminal Appeals Nos. 15-DBA and 16-DBA of 1984 filed by the Punjab State have not been served upon Swaran Singh accused, as his whereabouts are not known. So these appeals were separated from the appeal of Nachhatar Singh and the same would be heard, as and when notices of the said appeals are served upon the accused Swaran Singh.

Mr. Mulkh Raj Mahajan, who had filed the Criminal Revision, has not pressed the same, as the person, who had filed the revision petition, has since been murdered. Vide order dated 5.1.1984, the Division Bench admitted the State appeal No. 15-DBA of 1984 to Pull Bench and ordered the same to be heared alongwith Criminal Appeal No 627-DB of 1983 and this is how this criminal appeal is before the Full Bench.

Thus, we are left with the Criminal Appeal of Nachhatar Singh accused alone to decide.

The prosecution case, in brief, can be stated thus: On 9.9.1981, Lala Jagat Narain, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, when he was on bis way back to Jalandhar from Patiala, where he had gone in the morning at 10 a m. from Jalandhar, to witness an eye-camp being arranged there, and when his car (Fiat bearing No. PUQ-8880), after crossing Ludhiana City on Ludhiana-Jalandhar Road, had gone about two kilometers beyond the octroi post around 6 a.m., a motor-bike driven by Nachhatar Singh accused with two other Sikh youngmen sitting on the pillon, came parallel to his car, which was driven by Som Nath driver P.W. 5, and two Sikh youngmen sitting on the the pillion of the motor bike at that moment fired revolver shots at the two inmates of the car, that is, the driver and the deceased. Som Nath driver P W. applied brake to the car and started turning the same back towards Ludhiana, with the result that the motor-bike driven by Nachhatar Singh accused shot ahead of the can, however, it was brought to a stop at a distance of 10 to 15 yards from the car and thereafter the two Sikh youngmen sitting on the pillion of the said motor-bike got down and ran towards the car. While turning the car, the driver Som Nath P. W. noticed two police officials coming on cycles from the side of Jalandhar. The two Sikh youngmen on reaching near the car started firing at the deceased and the driver from a point blank range one such shot hit Som Nath PW on the right side of his neck, as a result of which his foot Rot lifted up from the accelerator and the car stopped dead on the Katcha portion of the road but after having taken the turn. The driver raised an alarm. The police officials, who were coming on cycles, challenged the assailants, whereupon the two assailants in question ran towards the place where Nachhatar Singh with motorbike was waiting in order to drive off. Nachhatar Singh accused made efforts to start the motor-bike, but it could not start. The two assailants, who had fired on the inmates of the car, losing hope of escape on the motor-bike, started running and made good their escape carrying their fire-arms with them and covering their escape by firing shots Nachhatar Singh accused, the driver of the motor-kike, too started running leaving the motor-bike behind. Construction work on the road was going on and Nachhatar Singh accused slipped from the heep of loose earth and fell down on the slope downwards and the two police officials, who were giving a chase, succeeded in overpowering and securing him on the spot Nachhatar Singh accused was then brought near the car Of those two police officials, one was ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW 6 and the other was a constable named Romesh Chander. On the asking of A.S.I. Mukhtiar Singh, Nachhatar Singh accused gave out his name and address Just about that time, a car coming from Jalandhar side reached the spot. ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW sent Som Nath driver, injured P W., to the Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, and while sending Som Nath P.W in that car, ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW disclosed to him his name and rank. Som Nath P.W. reached the B own Hospital at 6.30 p m, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Abdul Rashid P.W. 7 and was found to suffer from the following injuries:

3 mm � 3 mm size lacerated wound with 5 mm x 5 mm of tattooing over margins, margins inverted and lacerated, fresh blood oozing out. Situated over right side of the root of neck-postero-laterally 10 cm from midline ;

A linear lacerated wound under the chin 3 cm in size, verted margins Fresh blood oozing out, situation 3 cm from mid-line on right side. Superficial temporal and facial artery pulsations were felt on right side ; and

Favourable features of body of mandible at first molar site. X-rays showed comminuted fracture of angle of mendible on right side.

Nature of the injury was grievous. It was kept under observation for possible dangerous to life. The weapon of offence was opined to be firearm. The injuries were opined to be fresh. Injury No 1 was opined to be the wound one of entry and injury No. 2 the wound of exit.

Some unknown person conveyed the information of murder of the deceased and presence of his driver Som Nath P.W. in the Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital in an injured condition to Police Station Saddar, Ludhiana, at about 6.30 p.m. S.I. Joginder Singh PW 22, on this information, reached the hospital at 6-45 p m On his request, Dr Abdul Rashid P W. certified at 6.-50 p.m. on the same day that Som Nath P.W. was fit to make a statement. S I Joginder Singh P W then recorded his statement Exhibit P M. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. 359, dated 9.9.1981 came to be recorded at 7-55 p.m at P. S. Saddar, Ludhiana.

S I. Joginder Singh PW, after sounding photographer Gurbax Singh to reach the place of occurrence, proceeded to the place of occurrence in a jeep.

In the meantime, ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW, after tying the arms of Nachhatar Singh accused, searched his person to ensure that he was not carrying any weapon and thus recovered currency notes of Rs. 510/-, one identity card Exhibit P.4, a driving licence Exhibit P.3, three newspaper cutting Exhibits P.5 to P.7, and a small piece of paper Exhibit P.8, besides bis photograph. He also tried to contact the police station on phone from a nearby Rice Sheller. He succeeded contacting the police station at 8 p.m. Head Constable Sadhu Singh, who received the phone call, was informed about the incident who, in turn, told the ASI that information of the incident had already been received and that the S.H.C had proceeded to the hospital and his Ruqqa had been received in the police station, the basis of which a case had been registered and the police force had been sent to the spot. When ASI Mukhtiar Singh after telephoning reached the spot, SI Joginder Singh PW also then reached the place of occurrence.

After arrival of SI Joginder Singh PW at the spot, Ramesh Chand son of the deceased (now himself deceased) and Tilak Raj Sun son-in-law of the deceased also reached the place of occurrence in a car from Jalandhar side. S I Joginder Sirgh P W interrogated Nachhatar Singh accused and formally made his arrest and himself got busy with the inquest proceedings. Afer holding inquest, he drew up the inquest report which inter-alia contained statements of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW, Constable Romesh Chander, Ramesh Chard son of the deceased and Tilak Raj Suri son-in-law of the deceased. The latter two also attested the inquest report which was completed at 9-30 p m.

S.I. Joginder Singh then picked up 3 fired cartridge cases .3(sic) bore; ond fired cartridge case 455 bore; and two live cartridge 455 bore lying near the car; two bullet-piece 32 bore were found lying in front of the front seat and one bullet pieces .455 bore was lying in front of the rear seat inside the car He then handed over the dead-body of the deceased to A S.I Malkiat Singh and Constable Nirmal Singh for taking to Ludhiana for post mortem examination. Ramesh Chand and Tilak-Raj Suri accompanied the deadbody. He then took into possession the articles which were recovered from the person of Nachhatar Singh accused by ASI Mukhtiar Singh, after writing a memo in that regard.

S.I. Joginder Singh P.W. recovered two bloodstained mats from in front of the (sic) seat, Exhibits- P 19 and P.20; a bloodstained piece of rexine cut from the front seat of the car Exhibit P.21; a pair of chap-pals Exhibit P 28/1-2 from in front of the rear seat of the car; the motor-bike ''Enfield Bullet'' without any number plate standing at a distance of 10 Karams from the car, Vide memo Exhibit P Z. He also took into possession car (Fiat make) No. PUC-8880 of the deceased. He then prepared the rough site plan Exhibit PJJ and also recorded statement of P Ws. Sardara Singh and Ram Chand who are said to have reached the place of occurrence soon after the incident. He handed over the case property to Moharrir. Head Constable Surjit Singh PW 20 with seals in tact Nachhatar Singh accused was put in the lock-up Reinforcement headed by ASI Gian Chand from the police station had reached the place of occurrence at about 8-45 p m. S I. Joginder Singh P W. after depositing the case property reached back the place of occurrence at about 2-30 a m. on 10-9-1981. On his arrival, he recorded the statements of ASI Mukhtiar Singh and Constable Romesh Chander.

In the meantime, at about 10 p. m. on 9-9-1981 Dr. I. S. Mangat PW2, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, held autopsy an the deadbody of the deceased in the mortuary of the Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital instead of the mortuary attached with the Civil Hospital, which was poorly lighted, and found the following five injuries on his person:

Firearm entrance wound 1 cm � 3/4 cm, oval, on the outer and upper aspect right upper arm margins were blackened and inverted. There was corresponding hole in the shirt with blackening on it.

Fire arm oxit wound 1-1/2 cm � 3/4 cm. on the upper and inner aspect of right upper arm. The margins were everted. The underlying right humerous bone was fractured. Wounds No. 1 and No. 2 were comunicating with each other. A corresponding hole was present to this wound in the shirt

Fire-arm lacerated wound 1 cm. � 3/4 cm, oval with inverted and blackened margins on the lateral aspect right chest in the upper part, 10 cm. below the axilla corresponding hole in the shirt with blackening was present.

A lacerated wound oval 1 cm. � 3/4 cm. with a clot sticking into the wound on the left chest, outer part 8 cm below and behind the left nipple. Margins were everted. Haematon a was present underneath it.

A fire-arm entrance wound 1 cm � 3/4 cm. with blackened and inverted margins on the back of root of neck. Bruising and haematoma in an area of 8 cm. � 8 cm. around it was present. Cor-responding hole was present in the shirt.

Shock and haemorrhage caused by fire-arm injuries to the vital organs, especially the liver and the heart, was opined to be the cause of death. The injuries were opined to be ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 3 and Injury No. 5 were opined to be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was opined to have been caused ''instantaneously'' and the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was given ''between 4 to 6 hours''. The inquest report, Exhibit PH and request for post-mortem examination, Exhibit PJ, were received alongwith the deadbody, each page whereof was signed by Dr. I. S. Mangat. The doctor carried out the post-mortem examination at 10 p m as a special case at night and in the mortuary of the Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, under the orders of the District Magistrate.

The prosecution case against Nachhatar Singh primarily rests on the testimony of Som Nath PW5, ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW6, S.I. Joginder Singh PW22, Dr. I. S. Mangat PW2 and Dr. Abdul Rashid PW7.

PW5 Som Nath furnished eye witness account of the occurrence. (His statement receives corroboration from the medical testimony in regard to the assault that it was made from close range upon them by the assailants and the description of the injuries showing tattooing of the margins )

ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW, besides corroborating the statement of Som Nath PW in regard to the eye witness account of the occurrence, further deposed to the factum of arrest of Nachhatar Singh accused on the spot, recoveries effected by him from his person, recoveries of certain articles effected from the spot and from the cat by S.I. Joginder Singh P W, the holding of the inquest report by S.I. Joginder Singh and the arrest of the accused by the latter.

S.I. Joginder Singh PW, besides deposing to the recording of the statement of PW Som Nath, holding of inquest, arrest of Nachhatar Singh accused and taking into possession of various articles from the car and articles that were recovered from the person of Nachhatar Singh accused by ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW, and depositing of the case property with the Moharrir Head Constable Surjit Singh at the police-station, also deposed to the investigation pert of the prosecution case.

Dr. I. S. Mangat PW 2 deposed to the holding of autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased; Dr. Abdul Rashid PW7 deposed to his carrying out the medico legal examination of PW 5 Som Nath and his opining that he was fit to make a statement.

The other evidence examined by the prosecution is of formal nature and would be touched upon in the judgment wherever necessary.

When examined u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, Nachhatar Singh accused in reply to the pen-ultimate question, took up the following stand ;

About 7/8 years back, Ajaib Singh, father of Mohinderpal Singh D S. P./Jagraon, was murdered and I was falsely implicated in that case, but was discharged. A robbery was committed on a petrol pump in police station Raikot. I was detained in that case on 3.9.1981 but was not produced before any Magistrate at Jagraon I was arrested by. Inspector Gurdial Singh, D. S. P;(sic) Mohinderpal Singh wanted to kill me out of previous grudge by, setting up a police encounter Officers at the headquarters did not agree for my evaporation in that manner and so I was falsely implicated in this case and produced before Shri G. K. Rai, Judicial Magistrate at Ludhiana, on 10.9.1981. I was compelled to become an approver in this case and for that Inspector Raj Kishan Bedi and S P. Chalia forced me considerably giving allurements also For that purpose they had been taking my police remands in different cases.

In support of the defence version, the accused examined J. C. Vaidya DW2-News Editor, Doordarshan; Photographer Gurbaksh Singh DW6 ; Constable Karnail Singh Assistant Clerk DW7 ; R. Dhiman DW10-a local representative of Press Trust of India at Ludhiana ; Akhil Gautam DW12 senior staff corRespondent of United News of India at Chandigarh ; Sushil Bali DW13-Bureau Manager of the Press, Trust of India at Chandigarh Niranjan Singh Parwana DW14-a representative of the Hind Samachar group of news papers at Chandigarh ; P. P. S. Gill DW15-staff corRespondent of the Tribune at Ambala ; Narinder Malik DW19-Chief of the United News of India Bureau at Chandigarh Inderjit Sood DW20-Sub-News Editor of Hind Samachar ; J. R. Gupta DW23-Sub-Editor P. T I. ; Dr. Kali Charan DW24-a medical practitioner ; Hari Vansh Mehta DW25-Sub-Editor of Hind Samachar ; K. L. Pathak DW26- Sub-Editor of Hind Samachar ; Karam Singh Musafir DW27-Press representative of Daily Hind Samachar, Ludhiana and Anil Dogra DW28-staff corRespondent of Daily Veer Partap, Jallandhar.

It is not necessary to note the facts stated by the aforementioned defence witnesses. Suffice it is to say that most of them were examined to establish the authenticity of the news items published in Various news papers on 10th, 11th and 12th of September, 1981, in Hind Samachar'', ''Hindi Tribune'' and daily ''Veer Partap''. Such news Items and the testimony of the witnesses in question are not considered admissible, as would be shown in the later part of the judgment.

DW7 Constable Karnail Singh produced the file containing the F. I. Rs for the year 1971 including F. I. R. pertaining to the murder of Ajaib Singh, father of D. S P. Mohinder Singh. This witness stated that Nachhatar Singh accused had been arrested in that case alongwith a few other accused and that they were discharged and the case was filed as wholly untraced.

Mr. Dara Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellant Nachhatar Singh, has primarily argued that the Appellant had not been arrested on the spot and that he had been falsely implicated; that ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW had not seen the occurrence; and that the portion of the statement of PW 5 Som Nath, wherein he mentioned that ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW and Constable Romesh Chander reached the place of occurrence, that they had secured the Appellant at the spot and that the Appellant had given his name at the asking of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW is not reliable and sought to support his aforesaid submission from various circumstances which shall be presently noticed.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has net questioned the factum of the incident in which the deceased was killed and Som Nath PW was injured, nor the time of the incident has been questioned. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not advanced any argument in regard to the nature of the injuries and the fire-arms used by the alleged assailants in causing the same and the said injuries resulting in the ''instantaneevs'' death of the deceased. We, however, do not propose to rest this aspect of the judgment on the factum that the Learned Counsel has not touched upon the above matters. We entirely concur in the finding of the trial Court, which has very ably dealt with this aspect in the following words:

So far as time of occurrence is, concerned, the suggestion provided by the medical evidence coincides with ocular account befittingly Dr I S. Mangat (PW 2) has clearly stated in his state-ment as well as has provided in the post-mortem examination report, Exhibit PG, that the death of Lala Jee was instantaneous after the receipt of injuries and probable time that elapsed between the death and post-mortem examination was between 4. to 6 hours. Post-mortem examination was conducted by him on 9.9.1981 at 10 p m. and as such it can conveniently be concluded that the occurrence took place at 6-00 p m. as suggested by the persons, who have been pressed into the witness-box as witnesses to actual commission of the offence and out of whom the presence of one i e. Som Nath (P.W 5) has not been assailed on behalf of the accused. Som Nath (P.W 5) being the driver of the car, was bound to be with Lala Jee and perhaps in view of that inescapable nature his presence has not been disputed by the defence. He was hit by a bullet, which entered from the right root of his neck and went out from a place under the chin causing a fracture of mandible at first molar side. His injuries were bleeding. Placed with that situation his removal to the hospital was bound to be immediate. It was also possible keeping in view the admmitted busy traffic on the portion of the G. T. Road, where the occurrence took place It has been suggested on behalf of the defence itself during cross-examination of Som Nath (PW 5) that at average four vehicles pass from over the G T. Road at the relevant stripe per minute. Dr. Abdul Rashid (PW 7) has categorically stated that according to the casualty record Som Nath was brought to the hospital at 6-30 p.m. on 9.9.1981. This arrival time of Som Nath in the hospital clearly confirms the suggested time of occurrence The doctor has observed in the description of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 that fresh bleeding was oozing out. That also lends assurance to the suggestion that Som Nath was carried to the hospital soon after the receipt of injuries. There is still another circumstances-which confirms the time of occurrence and that is provided in the statement of Som Nath (PW 5) when he makes mention about their departure from Jalandhar for Patiala. He has stated that on 9.9.1981 they left Jalandhar by that car for Patiala at 10.00 p m. Distance of Patiala from Jalandhar being more then one hundred miles could not have been covered in less than 3-1/2 hours. Lala Jee went to Patiala for some work and as such could not have returned immediately after touching that town, as he was not participating in any car rally. Distance from Patiala to the place of occurrence being round about 65 miles, was bound to have taken two hours or more to travel it. In this situation of the matter it appears natural that Lala lee left for Patiala at about 4-00 p.m. after staying there for two to three hours and reached the place-of occurrence at about 6-00 p.m., as suggested in the occular account. He could not have reached that place by 4-00 p.m. unless he had left Patiala immediately after his arrival at that place, which on the face of it appears to be absurd.

The primary question, however, that falls for consideration is as to whether Nachhatar Singh accused-Appellant was a party to the murder of the deceased in the manner suggested by the prosecution.

Mr Dara Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, drew our attention to the fact that the two witnesses Sardara Singh and Ram Chand, in whose presence search of the Appellant had been carried out, have not been examined and given up as having been won over; name of the Appellant did not find a mention in the short history written in the hospital as given by PW 5 Som Nath, as per statement of Dr. Abdul Rashid PW 7; driving licence and identity card allegedly recovered from the Appellant by ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW soon after overpowering him on the spot and allegedly deposited in the Mal-khana were, in fact, not so deposited in the Malkhana, as per statement of Moharrir Head Constable Surjit Singh PW 20; that on the Doordarshan at 9-30 p.m. news flashed was that all the three assailants of Lalaji, that is, Lala Jagat Narain, had been arrested, whereas the prosecution case is that only one person, that is Naehhatar Singh was arrested; that the Punjabi Tribune and the Hind Samachar, daily newspapers too carried the news in their issues of 10.9.1981 that all the three assailants were arrested and that Entry No. 15. dated 9.9.1981 showing the departure of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW from police station at 1-10 pm towards village Laddowal in the Daily Diary register of police station, Saddar, Ludhiana, which was relied upon on behalf of the prosecution in order to reinforce the factum of the presence of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW about the place of occurrence, had been later on forged.

The fact that the occurrence took place at 6 p m on 9.9.1981 and Som Nath PW was taken to the Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana, at a distance of 5/7 kilometers, at about 6-30 p. m., receives support net only from the direct testimony of an independent and disinterested witness like Dr. Abdul Rashid PW 7 who had medico legally examined him, but also from an important circumstance, which he noted in his report, that Ma injuries were fresh and bleeding. Dr. Abdul Rashid PW also deposed to the fact that at 6-50 p.m. he had certified Som Nath PW to be fit to make a statement.

In the statement of Som Nath PW, which SI Joginder Singh PW recorded and on the basis of which, later on, formal F.I R. came to be recorded in the police station at 7-55 p m., mention is made of the arrival of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW alongwith a Constable at the time when the deceased and Som Nath PW were being assaulted by their assailants and the securing of one of them by the police officials who gave his name as Nachhatar Singh. Copy of the F.I R. as a special report reached the hands of the Ilaqa Magistrate at 9.55 p.m. Name of Nachhatar Singh, as one of the accused, and the circumstance that he was arrested on the spot by ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW clearly finds mentioned in the inquest report which had been completed by 9-30 p.m. on 9.9.1981 the day of the occurrence. We have also the testimony of Dr. I. S. Mangat PW 2 who stated that the inquest report was received alongwith the deadbody of the deceased which ho signed and we have seen that he has put his signatures on the inquest report at every page He held autopsy on the deadbody at 10 p.m. That means the prosecution story, as it was, implicating, inter-alia Nachhatar Singh as one of the accused and showing his arrest on the spot, must have taken shape latest by 8 p.m., because the inquest report and the statement of Som Nath PW which is in the hand of S I. Joginder Singh PW could not have taken less than two hours to prepare and write. S.T. Joginder Singh PW could not have got in touch with Som Nath PW before 6-45 p.m., for the news of the incident and admission of Som Nath PW in the Charistian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital was given to the police station by someone from the hospital, who did not give his name and address at 6-30 p. m S I. Joginder Singh PW would have taken another 15 minutes to reach the said hospital. That means that SI Joginder Singh PW had roughly one hour and 15 minutes at his disposal to concoct a version so as to falsely implicate Nachhatar Singh as one of the accused. There is no positive evidence that Nachhatar Singh Appellant, who, as per his statement, was under illegal detention of Inspector Gurdial Singh of Police Station Raikot, was so detained to the knowledge of S.T. Joginder Singh P.W. S I Gurdial Singh and D. S P. Mohinderpal Singh are at no stage concerned with the investigation of the present case. In the short time that was available to S. I Joginder Singh, we do not think he could or would have concocted a false prosecution version involving Nachhatar Singh accused-Appellant.

As regards the authenticity and admissibility of the newsbulleitn read out on Doordarshan on 9.9.1981 from 9-30 to 9-45 p.m. and the news of the incident and the alleged arrest of the assailants etc. carried in various newspapers like ''Hind Samachar'' daily ''Veer Partap'' and Punjabi Tribune, the trial Court has taken a correct view when it observed that such evidence is merely hearsay and cannot be relied upon. We entirely endorse the following observations of the trial Court in this regard as being correct:-

A number of newspapers have been placed on the record in defence. Irrespective of the fact that genuineness of a news paper is presumed u/s 81 of the Evidence Act, it is a settled principle of law that newspaper is not proof of the facts reported therein. It is so because a news item is based on borrowed information before a fact can be proved in a Court of law in a legal manner a person, who perceived that fact personally must come into the witness-box to state about it. The D. Ws. relating to those news items have mostly not owned them. Even otherwise, in the absence of the source and the persons to whom those news are attributed, they cannot be used in evidence being merely hearsay. Again, news items at times are provided and polished with different reasons. As is obvious from the statement of Shri J. C. Vaidya (DW 2) that a news item was announced at television on 9.9.1981 and the same was contradicted on the very next day i e. on 10.9.1981. It is a matter of common knowledge that such news which are not gathered directly from the source attributed, often have to be contradicted. The learned defence counsel has not disputed the legal position about the news items published in are newspapers and has contended that he simply wanted to show from different news, which were without basis, that police was not sure about the real culprits. It goes without saying that so far as the culprits who Could rot be captured, and who were neither known to any of the witnesses to the actual commission of the offence, are concerned the police could not be sure about their identity. More so, when possibly they did not provide sufficint view to leave behind indentifiable impression in the minds of the persons who had seen them for a while. Different lines of action are often adopted by the police at initial stages of investigation and they even so astray or can be misled at times. They, therefore, in the absence of their personal knowledge could not be certain to start with...........................

The news bulletin on Doordarshan and the reports of the incident and the arrest etc of the assailants in the various newspapers may throw doubts the involvement of the accused other than Nachhatar Singh. However, so far as Nachhatar Singh accused-Appellant is concerned, he cannot drive any benefit, because the reports in the various newspapers referred to his arrest on the spot and also recovery of some documents from him, as would be presently shown.

As to the circumstance that in 9-30 p m news bulletin of Doordarshan on 9.9.1981 it had been mentioned that all the three assailants of Lalaji had been arrested on the spot, it deserves highlighting that the defence did not dare to ask as to what were the names of those three persons who had been arrested. So the said circumstance did not prove that Nachhatar Singh Appellant was not arrested on the spot.

As regards the report in the daily newspaper Hind Sama-char, of which the deceased was a proprietor and Chief Editor, it may be observed that it carried two news items, one a small news item of a press statement made by the Chief Minister, Shri Darbara Singh, in which he is stated to have told the press that all the three assail-ants of the deceased, Lala Jagat Narain, had been arrested and the other main news item in which not only the arrest of Nachhatar Singh Appellant on the soot was mentioned, but even the fact that from his person his identity card etc was taken into possession was mentioned. So, even it for the sake of argument we consider the newspaper reports as admissible, the said newspaper reports do not exclude the presence of Nachhatar Singh Appellant on the spot. On the contrary, the newspaper report, so far as Nachhatar Singh Appellant is concerned, is clear that he was arrested on the spot. Further, we have it in the statement of the News Editor, DW 20 Inderjit Sood, that the printing of the Daily newspaper ''Hind Samachar'' starts at 9 p.m. daily. This circumstance again points to the conclusion that the prosecution case must have taken shape well before 9 p.m. Ramesh Chand son of the deceased, who was one of the editors of Hind Samachar and his brother-in-law Tilak Raj Suri reached the place of occurrence soon after S. I. Joginder Singh PW reached there at 8.05 p m. It is not unlikely that the news item published in the Hind Samachar that one of the three assailants of the deceased, that is Nachhatar Singh, had been arrested en the spot and his identity card had been taken into possession, had shieved through them, that is Ramesh Chand and Tilak Raj Suri to the office of the Hind Samachar.

Any lurking doubt in regard to the correctness of the prosecution story, particularly in regard to the implication of Nachhatar Singh Appellant and his arrest on the spot, is laid at rest by the testi-many of Som Nath PW, whose presence on the spot cannot be denied and, to be fair, has not been questioned. His testimony is that of a wholly relisble witness. His statement in Court is consistent with his statement which formed the basis of the F.I.R. His statement is bereft of any tutoring or radding. In his statement, be merely mentioned that ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW was accompanied by a constable. If there had been tutoring, he would have mentioned the name of the constable. In his statement, there is no mention of the fact that Nachhatar Singh Appellant on seeing the police had cautioned and warned his companions by naming first time the one and second time the other assailant and told them that the police had arrived the fact which ASI Mukhtiar Singh had deposed to. Had Som Nath PW been under instructions and tutoring, he too would have made to depose to these facts. The entire narration of the events by Som Nath PW in his statement struck to us as utterly spontaneous. The promptness with which the F.I.R came to be recorded lends further credence to his statement. The only circumstance that is pointed out as militating against acceptance of his version in regard to the implication of Nachhatar Singh Appellant and his arrest on the spot on its face value is the omission on his part to mention that fact to the doctor who medically examined him and prepared a note of what he had told to the doctor about the incident, as per testimony of Dr. Abdul Rashid PW7. We do not think this circumstance can at all be relied upon to through doubt on the testimony of Som Nath PW5. The doctor in the hospital was not supposed to record the F.I.R. and the condition in which he must have been when he reached the hospital it could not be expected that he could have given version of the incident in any great detail. However, with passage of time and the reassurance of physical well-being with the presence of doctors, he may have become fit enough to make a statement and that is why he was so certified by Dr Abdul Rashid PW at 6-50 p m.

Now coming to the testimony of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW, it may be observed that serial No 15 in the Daily Diary of the Police Station could be naturally at the place where it is recorded. Since it is the last entry on the page, and in the register on such last pages at the fagend vacant places had been noticed, so an argument is advanced that on the page en which serial No. 15 appears too may have been available such vacant place and serial No. 15 may have been incorporated therein afterwards The aforesaid argument was sought to be strengthened from the fact that en the facing page originally the first entry was serial No 15 and that the same had been erased and made into 16 and that process was repeated regarding all other subsequent entries on that page. It is not uncommon to repeat on the fresh page the last entry on the previous page or while putting date representing yesterday''s date or the earlier month or the earlier year on the first day of the next ensuing month or the next ensuing year. The mistake, therefore, in repetition of serial No 15 on the next page may have been committed genuinely and the other entries may have followed in routine sequence Later on, when discovering the mistake, a foolish effort to cover up the mistake by rubbing off the serial numbers and changing them was made instead of taking a correct stand that by mistake Serial No. 15 had been repeated on the facing page -a stand which they again could not escape and had to be taken when it was pointed out to them that the last serial No. 19 en that page was repeated as the first entry on the back page.

The trial Court found that Serial No 18 had not been erased. We too on trying to see the daily diary were not in a position to positively say that, in fact, Serial No. 18 had been written upon the original erased serial number However, change of serial No. 17 into 18 was sought to be established from the carbon copy summoned from the office of the Superintendent of Police. In the carbon copy, serial No. 18 (figure) is not the replica or the carbon copy of serial No 18. In the carbon copy, it is the figure ''7'' that appears to have been turned into figure ''8''.

Learned Advocate General for the Respondent-State argued that in this case late Sant Jarnail Singh Bhaindrawala was part of the conspiracy to murder Lala Jagat Narain and that in the Police Department there were some who were too fearful to go against him and there were others who were actually helping and collaborating with him and that in the carbon copy some such policeman may have tried to temper with serial No. 18 in order to show that this serial number is not the true copy of the original serial No. 18 in the daily diary register of the said date.

We do not think there is truth is what the learned Advocate General has said. If some one had tried to turn ''17'' into ''18'' in the carbon copy in order to bring it in line with serial No. 18 in the original, then that someone could not be a person who might be helping Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala or his men, because untempered, the carbon copy would have shown the said entry as ''17'' and not ''18'' which would have clearly militated against the serial No. 18 in the original. What plausibly appears to have been the case is the one which we have mentioned above that by mistake these entries had been made and someone on discovering this mistake and seeing the importance of this case later on erased all the original serial numbers on that page and substituted serial Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 and thus corrected the sequence of the serial numbers on this page with the serial numbers of the facing page.

In view of the wholly reliable testimony of Som Nath PW and the other circumstances already taken notice of, we entertain no doubt about the fact that Nachhatar Singh Appellant was one of the accused and that he had been secured on the spot.

The factum of arrest of the Appellant on the spot, in our view, goes a long way in assuring the Court about the presence of ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW on the spot and the veracity of his testimony, as only a policeman with a sence of duty alone would have put his life in danger in pursuing desperate characters like the assailants of late Lala Jagat Narain.

Mr. Dara Singh Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, laid emphasis on the fact that if ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW had arrested the Appellant and recovered from his person driving licence and the identity card, he would have deposited these two documents, like the other case property in the Malkhana, but, in fact, these had not been so deposited, as stated by Moharrir Head Constable Malkhana Surjit Singh PW20. The doubt, which this circumstance creates, has been cleared by the very news item in Hind Samachar, on which Learned Counsel for the Appellant was trying to rely in order to falsify the prosecution version regarding the arrest of only the accused from the place of occurrence.

Whereas one of the news items on that page had mentioned the arrest of all the three assailants (in the major news item, as also in the small news item, conveying to press what was said by the Chief Minister in his press conference, name of Nachhatar Singh as one of the accused who had been arrested on the spot, is mentioned). In the major news item, as already observed in the earlier part of the judgment, it was further mentioned that from the person of Nachhatar Singh, his identity card was also recovered. This would show that, in fact, the documents in question had been recovered at the time of his arrest from his person. Hence it must be by negligence that these two documents were not deposited in Malkhana alongwith the other case property and the investigating officer at the time must have genuinely believed that he had deposited all the case property in Malkhana and that is why in his statement he said so.

Mr Dara Singh then referred us to two other circumstances militating against the presence of A.S.I. Mukhtiar Singh and the arrest of Nachhatar Singh on the spot, first, that if Nachhatar Singh, to the knowledge of S I Joginder Singh PW (gained from the statement of Som Nath PW Exhibit P.M.), had been secured at the spot by ASI Mukhtiar Singh, then S. I. Joginder Singh PW would have carried handcuffs with him to formally arrest Nachhatar Singh from the place of occurrence.

We do not think much can be made out of this circumstance at all Since Nachhatar Singh Appellant, as per statement of Som Nath PW, had been taken into custody by a police official, S I. Joginder Singh. PW may have assumed that the said police officer must have secured him with handcuffs and, therefore, he may not have considered it necessary to go to the police station from the hospital merely to equip himself with handcuffs and, therefore, may have proceeded to the place of occurrence straightaway from the hospital and that was what he did, as is clear from his statement.

The other circumstance pointed out by Mr. Dara Singh is from the testimony of Photographer Gurbaksh Singh DWE. He in his testimony stated that he accompanied S I. Joginder Singh PW in his jeep to the place of occurrence ; and that on reaching there he did not see ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW, whom he personally knew, nor he saw Nachhatar Singh Appellant on the spot or any jeep on the spot. From this, Mr. Dara Singh has sought us to conclude that neither ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW was present on the spot, nor Nachhatar Singh Appellant was there and, therefore, the version that ASI Mukhtiar Singh PW had witnessed the occurrence and that he had secured Nachhatar Singh Appellant at the spot is false.

The testimony of Gurbaksh Singh DW6 does not inspire confidence at all. He denied the presence of any jeep at the place of occurrence. This statement has to be read in the context of the statement of S.I. Joginder Singh PW who had mentioned that on reaching the place of occurrence he had made Nachhatar Singh Appellant sit in the jeep and put some constables on guard upon him. From this statement, it is clear that Nachhatar Singh Appellant was not visible and, therefore, to rule out his presence it was necessary to rule out the presence of jeep at the place of occurrence and this witness went to that extent and stated that at the place of occurrence there was no jeep. This statement is palpably false, because S I. Joginder Singh PW had reached the place of occurrence in a jeep and, in fact, this witness had so stated in his statement also. The only difference in their statements in this regard is that whereas S.I. Joginder Singh PW stated that he proceeded in his jeep after telling Gurbaksh Singh DW6 to follow him, Gurbaksh Singh DW6 stated that he had accompanied him, to the place of occurrence. That means, one jeep in which S.I. Joginder Singh PW had proceeded to the place of occurrence was definitely there at the place of occurrence and Gurbaksh Singh DW6 told a clear lie when he stated that at the place of occurrence there was no jeep The motive to make this statement is dear that he wanted to rule out the presence of Nachhatar Singh Appellant from the place of occurrence who, according to S.I. Joginder Singh PW, was made to sit in the jeep, and thus was sitting in a jeep. In an intensive cross-examination, this witness has been extremely evasive in regard to his connection and that of his brother''s connection with the Akali Dal and its agitation. From his statement, it appears that he was suppressing the truth and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement at all.

The defence version given by Nachhatar Singh accused-Appellant at the trial appears to be clearly an afterthought. Nachhatar Singh Appellant was no novice and if what he had stated at the trial bad been a fact, then he would have availed the opportunity of disclosing it to the Magistrate before whom he was produced on 10-9-1981. We, therefore are not at all inclined to believe that he was already in police custody when the present occurrence took place and that he was falsely implicated in the present case.

For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same sustaining the conviction and the sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the accused-Appellant.