Naurang Singh vs The State

D.B. Lal, J.—Naurang Singh has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan for a charge u/s 302, I.P. Code, and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- out of which Rs. 2,000/- are to be paid to Ajmer Singh father of the dsceased Gobinder Singh.

At about 10 A.M. on 12-9-1971 Gobinder Singh aged 15 or 16 years was found stumbling out of Neera jungle as he had received a stab wound in his stomach and the same was bleeding profusely. His clothes were extensively besmeared and in that condition he was noticed by Chhitar and Bhangu both of whom were looking after their maize crop in their fields. The boy sought for their assistance and blurted out that he was given a stab blow with a knife, by Naurang Singh who brought him through Neera jungle on their way to get him employment. After stabbing the boy it was also informed that Naurang Singh had removed Rs. 100/- from his pouket. Gobinder Singh also gave the name of the father of Naurang Singh. He further stated where Naurang Singh was employed. Chhitar and Bhangu escreted the boy upto the road near village Deli where a liquor shop is situate on the Simla-Kalka road. At that place Sunder Lal, Forest Guard, Shakti Ram and Teja Singh also met the boy and the latter gave out the name and description of his assailant to these three witnesses as well. Thereafter one Sohan Lal was found coming with his taxi and a request was made by the boy Gobinder Singh as well as these persons that Gobinder Singh should be taken to Kalka for treatment. Upon interrogation by Sohan Lal, Gobinder Singh again described his assailant. Thereafter accompanied by Chhitar, Gobinder Singh came in that taxi upto Kalka. In the way they stopped at Barotiwala and asked for milk from one Huba Ram who ran a tea-shop. Huba Ram at once recognised the boy as the same who had come to his shop in the early hours on that day and taken tea-alongwith one other person whom he named Nauranga. Thereafter Gobinder Singh was taken to the civil hospital which was found closed as the day was Sunday. He was then attended to by a private practitioner Dr. Malhotra, and this doctor advised that the wound was sufficiently deep and the boy was in danger and must be removed to Chandigarh hospital. Chhitar then brought Gobinder Singh to Chandigarh hospital and got him admitted there at 11.45 A.M. on the same day. He was operated upon by Dr. Jai Dev Vij. As sufficient blood had been lost and the injury was grevious, he fell semi-consious at about 2 P.M. and thereafter prolonged his life upon 15-9-1971 when he died at 9.15 A.M.

Brahma Nand, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Dharampur happened to be at Parwanoo at about 2 P.M. on 12-9-1971 and he was casually informed by some one that a boy was stabbed near Deli and that he was taken to Chandigarh for treatment in the hospital. Brahma Nand, S.I., at once rushed to that hospital and contacted Chhitar. He wanted to record the statement of the boy but Dr. Jai Dev Vij prohibited him from doing so. The certificate of the doctor indicated that the boy was not in a fit condition to give a statement. Thereafter Brahma Nand recorded the statement of Chhitar which he did sometimes late in the evening, and the F.I.R. was recorded at P.S. Dharampur on the basis of that statement, at 10.15 P.M. on 12.9.1971. As the boy had not died till then, it was recorded under Sections 307 and 394 of the I.P. Code.

After the death of Gobinder Singh the post mortem examination of his body was conducted by Dr. Inderjit Dewan and he found that the stab wound had cut both liver and right kidney. The size of the cut was 1-1/2" long and about 5-1/2" deep. In his opinion the death was due to the injury caused on a vital organ of the body and the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

According to the information supplied by the deceased Gobinder Singh, a search was made for Naurang Singh and he could be arrested only on 26-9-1971 while going on the road between Khanna and Ishru villages. Mohan Singh, S.I. of the Punjab Police, effected the arrest. Thereafter the accused was brought to P.S. Dharampur and he was interrogated on 29-9-1971 by Prem Nath ASI. The witnesses Hari Nand, Sher Singh and Amir Chand were present. The disclosure statement Ex. PT pointed out that the accused was prepared to show the place where he had concealed the knife with which he gave the stab wound, and further that he was prepared to show the place where he had burnt his own clothes which got smeared with blood. Accordingly the accused conducted the Police party to Neera jungle and pointed out a bush from where the knife Ex.P. 3 was recovered. The same was found blood-stained and the subsequent report of the Chemical Examiner also disclosed that it was human blood. Similarly the accused pointed out the spot where his clothes were burnt and ash was recovered from that spot. Besides these two items, the police also recovered a few stone pieces which contained stains of blood and also a pair of shoes which admittedly belodged to Gobinder Singh.

During the course of investigation it was found that there was a motive with the accused to commit the murder. Formerly the accused was tenant in the house of Ajmer Singh who is father of Gobinder Singh deceased. He developed illicit intimacy with Puran Kaur mother of Gobinder Singh, with the result that Puran Kaur was divorced by Ajmer Singh. Thereafter by the assistance of the accused, Puran Kaur was married to one Sarwan Singh. The accused nevertheless continued his liaison with Puran Kaur. Gobinder Singh stood in his way inasmuch as he informed Sarwan Singh that his mother Puran Kaur was not sister-in-law of the accused but was living with his father Ajmer Singh and at that time the accused had developed illicit intimacy with her. Sarwan Singh thereafter stopped the accused from visiting his house. On 9-9-1971 the accused told Gobinder Singh that he would search out some employment for him and so he must accompany him upto Kalka and beyond it. Gobinder Singh had taken Rs. 100/- from his mother Puran Kaur as he was likely to be away for two months. In this manner the accused got the opportunity of robbing Gobinder Singh and also stabbing him to death.

This, in short, was the prosecution case. There was, however, a denial from the accused Naurang Singh, and it was stated that he is implicated because of his onmity with Sarwan Singh adopted father of the deceased. He pleaded alibi by stressing that on 12-9-1971 he was either present at Nabha where he was employed as he had gone to give an application for leave, or was at the hospital of Bhawanigarh where his sister was lying sick and lie had to attend upon her.

The presecution produced 24 witnesses including Chhitar (PW. 1), Bhangu (PW. 2), Sunder Lal (PW. 3), Shakti Ram (PW. 4) and Sohan Lal (PW. 16) who were the witnesses for the dying-declaration. The two doctors Dr. Jai Dev Vij (PW. 9) and Dr. Inderjit Dewan (PW. 10) came to prove the injuries. The witnesses for disclosure statement by the accused and the recoveries made at his instance were Prem Nath, ASI (PW. 21) ; Brahma Nand, SI (PW. 24); Hari Nand (PW. 22); and Sher Singh (PW. 23). Huba Ram (PW. 5) came to state about the Barotiwala incident. Ajmer Singh (PW. 7), Sarwan Singh (PW. 17) and Ajaib Singh (PW. 18) stated for the motive which the accused had to commit the murder. The other witnesses were mere or less formal in character.

The accused produced one witness Gurmail Singh (DW. 1) in support of his plea of alibi.

The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution version and sentenced the accused in the manner stated above. He has felt aggrieved of the decision and has preferred the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant-accused submitted in the foremost, that the dying-declaration could not be relied upon. The law as to dying declaration is well settled by the Supreme Court in Tapinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, If the dying declaration is acceptable as truthful then even in the absence of other corroborative evidence the Court can act upon it and convict the accused. A dying declaration is admitted in evidence, on the principle of necessity. The fact that it is not tested by cross-examination on behalf of the accused merely serves to put the Court on its guard by imposing on it an obligation to scrutinize all the relevant circumstances. It is at that stage that the need of corroboration comes in. After considering the evidence, however, in the instant case we are of the opinion that the dying declaration should be acceptable as truthful and hence conviction could be based merely on such dying declaration. The Appellant relied on Moti Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, The ratio of that case has no bearing on the facts in the instant case. In that case the facts were that the deceased was not proved to have died as a result of injuries received by him in the incident and as such the dying declaration made by the deceased in respect of that assault and the injury received by him was not held admissible as that assault or injury neither caused his death nor was held in any manner connected with the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death.

There is abundent evidence in the statements of Chhitar (PW. 1), Bhangu (PW. 2) Sunder Lal (PW. 3), Shakti Ram (PW. 4) and Sohan Lal (PW. 16) for this dying declaration. Gobinder Singh was accompanied by the assailant and it was day-time and as such he could not mistake the identity. He described him in sufficient detail to all these witnesses. The dying declaration was made almost immediately after the occurrence. There was no occasion for tutoring. The witnesses to whom the dying declaration was made had no animus against the accused who was rather a stranger to them. The deceased himself bore no ill-will or enmity to name a false person. There is consistency in the version all throughout. The learned Counsel pointed out that perhaps Gobinder Singh was not in a position to speak out due to injury and therefore he may not have given the statement. The argument is based on the statements of Chhitar (PW. 1) and Bhangu (PW. 2) inasmuch as they stated that the boy told them that he was feeling thirsty and hence could not speak and even requested that he should not be made to speak. At the same time Chhitar (PW. 1) very much stated that the boy became semo-conscious only at 2 P.M. in the hospital. Sunder Lal (PW. 3) was asked a question in cross-examination, and he denied the suggestion that the injured was unable to answer questions and that Chhitar (PW. 1) had answered on his behalf. Dr. Vij (PW. 9) no doubt stated about the condition of the patient when he was admitted in the hospital and that was only after 11. 45 A.M. He may have been unable to give his statement beyond that time, but to say that he was unable to give a statement before that time is not borne out from the record. He might have been feeling thirsty and might have been feeling pain, but that does not mean that he was unable to tell even the name of his assailant. In fact, no question was asked in cross-examination with the avowed object of eliciting an answer that the boy was not in a fit state of health to give a statement. It was in examination-in-chief that Chhitar and Bhangu stated that the boy was feeling thirsty and being in agony said that he should not be compelled to speak unless water was given as he was feeling thirsty. Sohan Lal taxi-driver (PW. 16) even stated that Gobinder Singh himself told him that he should be taken to hospital as he was stabbed by Naurang Singh. If he was unable to speak out anything, how could he make that request to Sohan Lal the taxi-driver. Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that Gobinder Singh could not speak and hence was unable to give a statement.

In this connection it was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that the stab wound never caused the injury, but the long-drawn out operation in the hospital resulted in his death. It was also stated that the death was due to coagulation of blood and not due to the stab wound. All this is a vain argument. The genesis of the argument is discovered in the statement of Dr. Vij (PW. 9) who although stated that coagulation in blood was also the result of the stab wound, yet chose to state in cross-examination that he could not be sure of the diagnosis because he was not a specialist on that point. The statement of Dr. Vij (PW. 9) is categorical at one stage that the death was due to stab injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination he stated that the death could be due to coagulation disorders at the same time holding that coagulation disorders could be the result of the liver injury. Admittedly when the death took place the liver injury was caused three days before. This coagulation disorder could be the cause of liver injury and both combined must have caused the death. Dr. Vij (PW. 9), upon re-examination by the Public Prosecutor, stated that he could not say definitely if coagulation disorder was the result of liver injury because that was a subject for a specialist to tell. It is a different matter that Dr. Vij (PW. 9) not being a specialist on blood disorders, may have stated like that. But the fact of the matter is that in his opinion the slight coagulation disorder which was a contributory factory in death was due to liver injury. Dr. Inderjit Dewan (PW. 10) was never risked such a question and he was definite to state that the death was due to injury caused to vital organs, namely the liver and the kidney. Therefore, the entire theory regarding coagulation disorder which has been advocated by the learned Counsel to advance his cause is threwn to the wind. There was a 5-1 /2" deep cut in the liver and kidney, and in our opinion the primary cause of death was that injury. The boy must have bled profusely since the moment the injury was caused and that resulted in the coagulation disorder. Similarly Dr. Vij (PW. 9) also denied that the death was due to the operation which he had to perform to save the life of the boy.

It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the dying declaration was not made to Dr. Malhotra (PW. 14) to whom Gobinder Singh was taken in the first instance for dressing of the wound. It was not required of the boy to have stated to Dr. Malhotra as well, the name of his assailant when he had already done that to so many persons. Besides, Dr. Malhotra (PW. 14) also stated that he never asked the boy as to how he had received that injury.

It is, therefore, more than clear that the dying declaration was truthful and as such could be explicitly relied upon. The learned Sessions Judge has given a clear and unambiguous finding on that question. We have no hesitation to accept that finding and maintain the conviction.

The learned Advocate General further pointed out that even though the dying declaration could be solely depended upon, yet there was sufficient corroboration, as well, in the present case to lend support to it He derived that rorroboration from the recoveries made at the instance of the accused. These recoveries are essentially knife (Ex.P. 3) and the ash of the burnt clothes. It was stated for the knife that although it was stained with human blood yet the grouping of that blood was not done so that it could not be connected with the blood of the deceased. To say that in every case blood grouping is essential is to deprive the prosecution of the flexibility in evidence which bears upon the nature of evidence adduced and reliance which can be placed on such evidence. When there was a dying declaration which could even be entirely depended upon and the knife was recovered at the instance of the accused and the same was found smeared with human blood, where was the rigidity in evidence of further testifying the evidence by taking a blood group test. The recovery of knife (Ex. P. 3) in the circumstances was sufficient to implicate the accused. There may be a case in which blood-grouping is necessary if there is no evidence besides the recovery of the weapon of attack smeared with blood and merely on that basis the accused is indicted with crime. But the instant case is on different footing. The recovery of knife will nonetheless knd assistance to the dying declaration if at all any such assistance was required. Both the doctors stated that the knife (Ex.P. 3) could be utilized for causing the injury. It was then stated that the place or recovery was about 4 furlongs from Deli, but in the disclosure statement (Ex. PT) "near the liquor shop Deli" were mentioned. We can hardly find discrepancy in that statement. If the accused described that he had thrown the knife near the liquor shop Deli and also stated that he had thrown it in a bush, he decidedly referred to Neera jungle and the actual spot might be 4 furlongs from the situation of the liquor shop at Deli. It was then stated that the bush was open an space. But it is forgotten that the accused alone had the knowledge of that place when he made the disclosure statement. The law as to Section 27 of the Evidence Act is very well enunciated by their Lordships in Prabhu Vs. State of U.P., It is not the knife that was discovered, but the "fact discovered" within Section 27 embraced the place from where the object was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. That thing was important as it was a strong circumstance against the Appellant. It was also stated that Brahma Nand, SI, had previously made a reconnoitre inside the Neera jungle and he should be presumed to have had knowledge of the knife or the burnt clothes. The inference is hardly possible to be drawn because the police may not have discovered that bush where the knile wae lying hidden or that spot of ash inside a vast jungle area. The entire argument is based on a pure surmise which is to be brushed aside. According to Prem Nath, ASI (PW. 21), the accused himself took 10 to 15 minutes in tracing out the bush from where the knife was recovered. One can realise how could the police party discover the knife without prior knowledge that it was lying there. Then, exception was taken to the statements of Hari Nand (PW. 22) and Sher Singh (PW. 23) the two witnesses before whom the recoveries were made. In respect of Hari Nand (PW. 22) it was stated that he used to draw water from a tap near the police station. That was hardly a reason to discredit his testimony. Sher Singh (PW. 23) has been police witness in two cases before. That was again a reason hardly relevant to discredit his testimoney. Therefore, the recoveries were amply proved and were decidedly circumstances to corroborate the dying declaration.

The prosecution decidedly proved a motive and that was additional circumstance to lend support to the dying declaration. The statements of Ajmer Singh (PW. 7), Sarwan Singh (PW. 17) and Ajaib Singh (PW. 18) were rightly relied upon. The Appellant himself stated that Sarwan Singh became so much his enemy that he beat him and implicated him in the present case. He also stated that Sarwan Singh had made him not to visit his house. The cause of enmity was obvisouly the liaison between the accused and Puran Kaur wife of Sarwan Singh. The deceased gave information to Sarwan Singh that the accused was visiting Puran Kaur to have illicit relation with her and not because she was his sister-in-law. He also disclosed the past relationship of the accused with his mother while she was wife of Ajmer Singh. This must have infuriated the accused and when he found that Rs. 100/- were obtained by Gobinder Singh for employment and he was to accompany him, he took the first opportunity of robbing him of that money and of further stabbing him, leading to his death.

It was contended that Puran Kaur should have been produced. The prosecution had produced Ajmer Singh (PW. 7), Sarwan Singh (PW. 17) and Ajaib Singh (PW. 18). Their statements were sufficient to unfold the prosecution story tegarding motive. The statement of Puran Kaur would not have added anything fresh. Perhaps the police thought not to embarras her as she was under a liaison with Naurang Singh during her wedded life with Ajmer Singh and even continued that liaison for sometimes during her coverture with Sarwan Singh. Her statement may have further complicated their marital relationship. That wns probably the reason why Puran Kaur was given up. In Narain and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, their Lordships have laid down the test as to whether prosecution is required to produce all witnesses meant to prove one and the same event. According to their verdict, the prosecution is only required to call such witnesses who are essential to unfold the prosecution story. If sufficient number of witnesses are produced to unfold the story, multiplicity of witnesses merely to repeat what the others have already stated, has never been approved.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant criticised the statement of Huba Ram (PW. 5) inasmuch as Chhitar (PW. 1) did not disclose his name in the F.I.R., nor stated about him before the police or before the Magistrate. Besides him, Sohan Lal taxi-driver (PW. 16) also stated that although Huba Ram (PW. 5) did state that he had seen the boy in the morning but he did not disclose in his presence the name of the person accompanying him. In the F.I.R. it was not required of Chhitar (PW. 1) to have given that detail, and similarly omission in the police statement will not amount to contradiction, and to that extent the statement of Huba Ram (PW. 5) could not be discarded. As regards the statement before the Magistrate, no doubt Chhitar (PW. 1) did not name Barotiwala incident. But at that stage even the said detail was not required to be blurted out. At any rate, Huba Ram (PW. 5) is clear in his statement and Sohan Lal (PW. 16) also lends support to him because the taxi did stop at his tea-shop and some talk took place about the boy accompanied by another mam having taken tea there. In the presence of Sohan Lal taxi-driver, may be, the name of the person accompanying was not taken or Sohan Lal might have missed that part of the talk which took place there. Therefore, in our opinion, even Huba Ram (PW. 5) could be relied upon and that is again evidence against the Appellant inasmuch as he was last seen with the deceased and the presumption is that he must have caused the injury.

Lastly, the defence of alibi was disproved, and that was a circumstance against the Appellant. In fact the Appellant himself was not consistent in the plea. Partly he stated upon the statement of Gurmail Singh (DW. 1) that he was personally present on 12-9-1971 at Nabha to give his application for casual leave which fact cannot be believed to be true; and partly he stated that he was present in the hospital at Bhawanigarh where his sister was lying sick. In fact no evidence was adduced from that hospital to prove the presence of the Appellant. If a false plea of alibi was taken and it was ultimately disproved, that was certainly a circumstance against the accused.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out yet a few other factors which need consideration at this stage. He submitted that the F.I.R. (Ex. TR) could not be relied as some previous information was given to Brahma Nand, SI, at Parwanoo about the stabbing of the boy. In that connection, we wish to make it clear that the First Information Report recorded u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) is that document which is recorded at the police station with the avowed object of investigation for a crime of which, if not detailed, atleast skeletion details are given by the informant. Any cryptic and anonymous oral message delivered at a Police Out-post cannot be treated to be first information report as the object was never to start investigation but merely to give information so that the police may be vigilant and may be available for any one to come and report upon the incident. The mere fact that the information was the first in point of time will not by itself clothe it with the character of first information report. The question whether or not a particular document constitutes a first information report has, broadly speaking, to be determined on the relevant facts and circumstances of each case (see: Tapinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, This is what Brahma Nand, S.I" (PW. 24) stated in the present case:

On 12-9-71 I was present at Parwanoo in connection with the Excise Naka-Bandi alongwith certain other policemen. At about 2.30 p.m. I was informed that a boy was stabbed in the jungle known as Nira jungle and that he had been removed to Nalka hospital in a taxi.

From this statement, it is not clear who gave that information to Brahma Nand, SI. It is also not clear if the said information was given at the Police Out-post Parwanoo. Such a cryptic and casual information can hardly be treated to be a first information report. In the F.I.R, (Ex. PR) under the heading "Police Proceedings" Brahma Nand, SI, noted down as follows;

Today while on patrol duty to Parwanu we came to know from Sohan Lal Taxi Driver No. HIL-5511 that some incident of knife stabbing in jungle Nehra had happened and that some local person has taken the injured person towards Kalka for treatment.

Firstly, this part of the statement in the F.I.R. was in admissible in evidence as it related to a statement made during investigation. Secondly, the statement went no far but to say that some anonymous and laconic information was given to the S.I. by a taxi-driver of Parwanoo. Again, the information could not be considered to be first information report u/s 154 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure. On behalf of the Appellant, an application is moved for fresh evidence. The learned Counsel strenuously urged that we should send for the record of Parwanoo Out-post and find out for ourselves what that information was that was recorded at that Police Out-post. It is evident from the abovenoted statement of Brahma Nand, S.I., that the information was not even given to any police out-post at Parwanoo. He got that information from a taxi-driver, we know not where and in what circumstances? The information it self was cryptic snd some what anonymous. It was not even known as to where any crime was committed. In these circumstances, we do not think it at all necessary to summon any record of the Police Out-post, Porwanoo. It was rather misuse of the provision to pick out a document either from the Police Out-post Parwanoo or from some other source, when the Court it self was unaware of the nature of that document, and even the existence of such document was not proved by any dependable evidence. It was contended that Chhitar (PW. 1) gave some statement before the committing Magistrate which indicated that some one was sent to Police Out-post, Parwanoo to give information about the stab (sic) ing and the statement of Chhitar was also recorded there. That part of the statement of Chhitar was never put to him while he gave statement in the Sessions Court. As such admittedly he was not contradicted with that statement. Therefore, if at all any such statement existed the same could not be utilised before the Sessions Judge. That apart, Chhitar could have very well explained in what circumstances he gave that statement. He may have even denied to have given any such statement and as Chhitar already stands corroborated by so much evidence, that statement of Chhitar even if proved to have existed, would not have gone to discredit his primary evidence before the Sessions Judge. It would be nothing but fishing out evidence in favour of the defence to permit a roving enquiry into the record of Police Out-post, Parwanoo in the distant hope that something might be found there in favour of the accused. On these grounds we have not found marit in the Cr. M.P. No. 57 of 1975 and have rejected that petition.

It was then contended that there were omissions in the F.I.R. inasmuch as details of the dying deelarations were not given, nor the Barotiwala incident wes mentioned. We do not consider that the omission of Huba Ram or Barotiwala incident was at all material for the F.I.R. nor do we consider that all the dying declarations were required to be written in the F.I.R. It was no doubt mentioned in the F.I.R. that the dying declarations were made to Chhitar, Bhangu, Sunder Lal, Teja Singh and Shakti Ram. That was enough, and the other narration related to a detail which heed not have been given in the F.I.R. Similarly it could not be stated that the F.I.R. was delayed in any manner. Brahma Nand, S.I., could record the statement of Chhitar after 8 p.m. in the hospital and sometime was taken to send that statement to P.S. Dharampur and so the F.I.R. was written at 10.15 p.m. It was casually argued that in the post mortem report the name of the assailant was not given, nor the place of occurrence was mentioned. That information was not required to be given in the post mortem report and it was rightly omitted.

From all that we have stated above, an irresistible inference is drawn that Naurang Singh caused the stab blow to Gobinder Singh. He injured the vital organs, namely the liver and the kidney, which directly resulted in the death of Gobinder Singh. The accased must have intended the consequence of the injury that he caused. The offence u/s 302, I.P. Code, was clearly made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has written a careful and well considered judgment. He has dealt with every aspect of the case, both factual and legal, and we are in accord with his conclusions.

In the result, the appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed.