Naurang Singh Deva Singh vs The State

Passey, C.J.—By his order dated 31-8-1955, the Sessions Judge, Sangrur has convicted Naurang Singh for the murders of Mukand Singh and his son Bhan Singh of village Gujran and sentenced him to death. He has also convicted and sentenced him to 2 years'' R.I. u/s 326, I. P. C. for the injuries caused to Mst. Tej Kaur widow, of Mukand Singh. This is an appeal by Naurang Singh and the record is also before us u/s 374, Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the death penalty.

About three years before the present inci-dent which took place on 18-5-1955, Naurang Singh had attempted to ravish Mst. Thakri wife of Mal Singh and Mukand Singh had reached to her ''help. He had given a lathi blow on his leg and broken it. No report regarding the assault on Mst. Thakri or the injury sustained by Naurang Singh was made to, the police nor were any pro-gs initiated in any Court.

For bearance on the side of Naurang Singh was perhaps due to his having been at fault and or her husband Mal Singh might have as Naurang Singh had already been given a disabling (temporarily at least) grievous in jury. It is stated that the accused had felt deeply stung and the fire of revenge had continued smoulder in his mind.

On 18-5-1955 Mukand Singh alter taking his meals had gone to sleep and with him also lay on the same cot his six years old son Bhan Singh On . another cot close-by were lying his wife Mt Tej Kaur and his 11/4 year old suckling. A Jew.. yards away from them practically in the same court-yard but more precisely in the passage con-, necting the lane outside with the court-yard lay Mt. Santi, mother of Mukand Singh.

A kerosene lantern hanging from a peg was burning and spreading light in. that restricted portion of the house of the deceased. Quite unexpectedly at about 10 P.M. the Appellant armed with a gandasa and accompanied by his friend Ram Chand earrying a spear gained ingress to the where Mukand Singh and his wife with a'' son each were lying on their cots. While passing her they were asked by Mt. Santi as to where were going but to her they gave no reply.

On reaching the cot of Mukand Singh, Nau-Singh began to shower violent blows with his weapen weapen while Ram Chand urged upon him to finish the job speedily assuring him that he would not allow any body to interrupt him. Naurang Singh delivered no less than five blows on the sleeping man, some with deadly force on vital portions. The lad Bhan Singh awoke and tried to'' rise but the Appellant killed him by striking the gandasa on his head.

Mt. Tej Kaur had spread her arms to protect her husband and while she was making that effort she was given four blows with the gandasa. The alarm raised by her cries brought to her house some of her neighbours. Gumam Singh had ac cording to him, seen the attack upon Mukand Singh from the roof of his house, which was contiguous to the courtyard of the latter.

He rushed down and as he and Natha Singh were about to enter the passage to reach the place of incident, they found Ram Chand coming from the courtyard. Gurnam Singh assisted by Natha Singh succeeded in holding him up, but Naurang Singh in that confusion succeeded in bolting away.

Just then Amar Singh, a member of we local Homeguard, turned up with his rifle and was apprised by Gurnam Singh of what had preceded Gurnam Singh handed over Ram Chand to Amar,, Singh and himself went to Bachan Singh iambar dar and informed him of what he had heard and seen. Thereafter he proceeded to the house of'' Sangat Singh lambardar and told him the above-story.

In his absence, Mt. Tej Kaur had told Amar'' Singh and Kirpal Singh another member of the home-guard who had also arrived at her house of how Naurang Singh had killed her husband and her son Bhan Singh and how she had herseli been attacked with a gandasa. Gumam Singh-" returned to Mt. Tej Kaur''s house with Sangat Singh, soon followed by Bachan Singh lambardar.

To Sangat Singh and Bachan Singh also Mt Tej Kaur narrated her woeful story. All these witnesses found Mukand Singh and Bhan Singh lying dead on their cot and Mst. Tej Kaur with injuries on her person, Sangat Singh then left police for station Dirbha and after travelling a 3/4 miles lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P.A., at 2. A.M. on 19-5-1955.

That report stated that Naurang Ram Chand had killed Mukand Singh and Bhan Singh with gandasa and barchhar and " Tej Kaur had been attacked with a gandasa gat Singh had mentioned, the names of witnesses also in that report and above all the various injuries received by the victims were described by him in great detail. On getting that informa-tion A.S.I. Kirpal Singh arrived at the house of Mukand Singh at about 3-30 A.M. and started investigation.

He drew, up the inquest reports relating to the two corpses and also the statement regarding the injuries of Mt. Tej Kanr. The dead-bodies were despatched to the Sangrur Civil Hospital at 6 A.M. on 19-5-1955 and Mst. Tej Kaur also reached there. Dr. Sita Ram held the post mortem examination and was able to disdover the following injuries: On the corpse of Mukand Singh.

One incised wound about 4 1/2" x 1 l/2"x going deep in the bones of hand on the dorsal side, cutting completely the meta-carpal bones of middle, ring and index and carpal bones of the right hand.

One incised wound 4 1/2" x 2" x 2" on the right side of the arm. The humerous bone was completely cut.

One incised wound about 51/2" x 2" x 2" on the right side of chest perpendicular to the middle line below the right clavicle. The lung was coming out in the wound. Half of the right part of the sternum was cut completely. The se cond rib in the upper part was cut.

One incised wound about 5" x 1" x going deep in the lower jaw and the left side of the neck. The lower jaw bone was completely cut and the blood vessels were also cut. The wound ex tended from the left angle of the mouth, outwards and downwards.

One incised wound 2" x3/4" x 1 1/2" on the right side of the chest in the upper part of the axilla.

On the corpse of Bhan Singh.

One incised wound 51/2" x 1" x going deep into the brain about 2 1/2" on the left side extending from the frontal to the parietal bono. There was a further fracture of the skull extending to the right parietal eminence encircling the back of the head.

He also examined Mt. Tej Kaur and testified to the presence of the following injuries on her person 1. An incised wound 3" x 1" x deep elbow joint over outer and front part of right elbow joint. A piece of lower end of humerus was completely cut and the joint cavity was exposed. The cut piece was removed.

An incised wound 3/4" x 1/6" x skin deep over the tip of right index finger dorsal aspect.

An incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x the meta arpophalyngeal joint of the left dorsal aspect of left thumb. The joint capsule was cut.

An incised wound 1" x 1/4" x deep in the bone of the first phylanx of the left thumb on the inner and front side. A small piece of bone was found cut off.

Naurang Singh was arrested the same day (19-5-1955) at about 12-15 P.M. and by 4 P.M. he (disclosed that he had concealed the gandasa in the Grewalan. Wala field. He led S.I. Mohinder Singh who had in the meantime taken over the Investigation from A.S.I. Kirpal, Singh, and the two lambardars Sangat Singh and Bachan Singh to the prewalan Wala field and in their presence brought out the weapon bearing stains of blood. The ganjas was later sent to the Chemical Examiner and been. to, the Serologist, whoso reports have proved hat the stains were of human blood.

At the trial Mt. Tej Kaur, Mt. Santi and Gurnam Singh gave evidence as eye-witnesses. Mal singh P.W. 9 and Mt. Thakri P.W. 16 proved be criminal assault on the latter by the Appellant some three years ago and the helpful part that Mukand Singh had then played. S.I. Mohinder Singh, Sangat Singh P.W. J9 and Bachan Singh P.W. 20 gave evidence to show that Naurang Singh had disclosed the presence of the gandasa in the Grewalan Wala field that he had brought it out of die place of its concealment and further that it bore marks of blood.

Gurnam Singh, Natha Singh P.W. 2 and Amar Singh P.W. 3 proved that Ram Chand had been captured on the spot and made over to Amar singh. The two lambardars, Amar Singh, Natha Singh and Kirpal Singh also stated that Mt. Tej Kaur had told them that Naurang Singh had killed Mukand Singh and Bhan Singh and injured her.

Both Naurang Singh and Ram Chand denied the charges but led'' no evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge giving him the benefit of doubt acquitted Ram Chand and convicted and sentenced Naurang Singh as stated above.

It is contended by the Appellant''s counsel that the F.I.R. had not in fact been taken down at P.S. Dirbha but in village Gujran after A.S.I.. Kirpal Singh had seen the dead bodies and met Mst. Tej Kaur and the other, witnesses. He drew our attention to the elaborate details with which the various injuries of each of the three victims had been narrated and urged that that fact by itself was enough to bear him out in his contention.

He has further referred us to the statements of Mt. Tej Kaur, Sangat Singh and Gurnam Singh to show that the F.I.R. was drawn up not at'' Dirbha Police Station but at the place where the dead-bodies lay. It is in Mst. Tej Kaur''s statement that the police had in her presence recorded the statement of Sangat Singh P.W. 19 in the village and had his thumb-impression affixed thereon.

The Roznamcha register was shown to her and she stated that the statement of Sangat Singh might have been recorded in such a book. Sangat Singh in his statement before the committing Magistrate on 7-6-1955 with which he was confronted at the trial had said that his report had been taken down by M. Kirpal Singh on a sheet of paper in a register and that he had brought that register with him to the spot.

In the Sessions Court Gurnam Singh stated that after the despatch of .the dead-bodies the police had examined Sangat Singh lambardar at the spot and the deponent had thumb marked it. A.S.I. Kirpal Singh and Sangat Singh stated in'' the trial Court that the F.I.R. had been taken down at P. S. Dirbha, but in view of the clear statements, of Mt. Tej Kaur and Gurnam Singh and the long details of the injuries of Mukand Singh, Bhan Singh and Mst. Tej Kaur incorporated in the F.I.R.,'' it is difficult to repel Shri Om Parkash''s contention that the F.I.R. had been recorded in Mukand Singh''s house.

We have, therefore, to appraise the prosecu- tion evidence independently of the F.I.R. which we must feel impelled to discard not only as a suspicious document but perhaps also because it would be hit by the provisions of Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure It is contended that the fact that the report was drawn up not at the Thana but at the place of occurrence should put the Court to exercise caution while examining the prosecution evidence, for necessarily in such cases an element of doubt is cronted that it was so done because direct and honest evidence was perhaps not available and that it became available as a result of some clever ingenuity of the investigating officer.

It has been seen in some cases and the present is one of them that investigating officers deviate from the salutary rule of taking down information with regard to the commission of crimes at the police Station. They might be doing so as a meansure of expediency in their zeal to foresee and meet objections against the incomplete or imperfect nature of a report, but such a practice cannot be condemned too severely and the sooner it is given up the better, for it not only offends the mandatory rules of procedure but vitiates the sanctity and importance of the document, and exposes the coherently spun out version of the incident, even if true, to the likelihood of being spurned.

But a defective F.I.R. cannot destroy the otherwise credible and clear fabric of which the prosecution story. The dereliction of the investigatingh officer to adhere to the rule govering the recording of first information reports, although reprehensible, cannot, in the case before us, have any serious or adverse effect on the upright evidence of the inmates of the house, Mt. Tej Kaur and Mt. Santi, or for that m atter, of Gurnam Sighh, Natha Singh, Amar Singh, Kirpal Singh, Sangat Singh or Bachan Singh, for there was no question of the possibility of their being got-up witnesses.

The presence of the eye-witness at the place mentioned by them was natural and so was the arrival of the other witnesses for the convincing reasons stated by them. All of them had been examined by the investigating officer the very night within a few hours of th3e murders and Mt. Tej Kaur was a victim of the outrange herself having received as many as four injuries.

In The State Vs. Indar Singh and Others, it has been held that the recording of a report at the spot instead of at the police station would serously damage the prosection case only where it could be shown that there was a possibility that evidence at the sppot had been fabricated by the investigating officer either by manufacturing clues or by procuring the evidence of eye-witnesses who were not likely to have been present at the spot.

I am in respectful agreement with that view. In the case before us we are satisfied that no evidence was fabricated. Mt. Tej Kaur and Mt. Santi Knew Naurang Singh for he was residing close to their housse and their presence at the time and place of the incident was natural.

Mt. Tej Kaur was so close to her husband that she could not miss to identify the assailant much less one whom she knew so well already. She had seen him killing her husband and son and in her attempt to save them had been attacked herself. It was she again who had immediately reised an alarm and had told those that arrived that her husband and so had been killed and that she herself had been injured by Naurang Singh.

Like an honest witness she did not accuse Ram Chand of having given any below to any of the victims. She only accused him of his having come with Naurang Singh and to have instigated him to be quick in finishing his work. Her evidence is impressive and free from the tendency to overstate facts. She is corroborated by Mt. Santi and Gurnam Singh.

Gurnam Singh had seen the Appellant attaching Mukand Singh and had rushed to the place of incident. He had caught hold of Ram Chand and had seen Naurang Singh run past him. It dwas again he who had brought the two lambardars, Sangat Singh and Bachan Singh to the house of Mukand Singh so that they might see things for themselves.

Natha Singh has supported him and Amar and Nath Singh when he said when he said that he had seen Ram Chand in their castody. Sangat Singh had reached P.S. Dirbhan by 2 A.S.I. Kirpal Singh with him.

The recovery of the blood-stained weapon of offence, at tile instance of the accused, is another piece of evidence that connects him with the crimes. There is thus no scope to assume that any evidence had been concocted by the investigating officer.

Sri Om Parkash next tried to urge that the prosecution case is built or shake the incident had happened in a dark night and; it provided by'' veracious testimony bearing out the prosecution story. The dereliction, of too invest must have been extremely difficult for Mt. Tej Kaur or Mst. Santi to identify the culprits. This is a gating officer to adhere to the rule governing the or Mst. Santi to identity the culprits this is, a recording of first information reports, although re- far-fetched argument, as there is abundant evidence prehensile cannot in the case before us have on the record to prove that a lantern was burning in the court-yard of Mukand Singh.

Mt. Tej Kaur has given the reason as to., why prehensible, cannot, in the case before us, have any serious or adverse effect on the upright evidence of the'' inmates of the house, Mt. Tej Kaur and Mt. Santi, or for that matter, of Gurnam Singh, Natha Singh, Amar Singh, Kirpal Singh, Sangat Singh. or Bachan Singh, for there was no question of the possibility of their being got-up witnesses. The presence of the eye-witness at the place mentioned by them was natural and so was the arrival of the other witnesses for the convincing reasons stated by them. All of them had been examined by the investigating officer the very night within a few hours of the murdors and Mt. Tej Kaur was a victim of the outrage herself having received as many as four injuries.

He, therefore, concluded that neither of those; two ladies had identified any assailant. We are unable to agree with him, for we are satisfied that there is no ground to hold that injury No. 5 could not have been caused with the gandasa with which other blows were showered upon Mu kand Singh. In his post-mortem report Dr. Sita- Ram had described injury No. 5 to be an incised wound.

In the Sessions Court he, however, stated that the extent of the depth of the injury indicated: that it had been caused by a sharp piercing wea pon. A medical witness of his experience could not have missed to name the injury in the postmortem report as a stab or a piercing wound If it was actually so.

He was then, in spite of the 11/2" depth of the! wound, clear that it was an incised wound.. We have seen the ends of the blade of the gandasal Ex. P-3 which are sharp and pointed and have no difficulty to come to our own conclusion that injury No. 5 could have been easily caused by any of those two ends. The length of the injury goetf more against its being an injury by a bhala.

There is, therefore, nothing to discredit the evidence of Mt. Tej Kaur regarding all the injuries to her husband having been given by Naur Singh with his gandasa. Even if there was no in the court-yard, it must not have been at all cult for Mst. Tej Kaur or Mst. Santi to indentify the accused. Any doubt that the eye witnesses might have mistaken somebody for Naurang, Sing has to be ruled out.

Shri Om Parkash next dwelt upon the adequacy of the motivo for the murders and'' failure of the prosecution to suggest any immediately cause for the dastardly crimes. The evidence of Mst. Thakri P. W. 16, Mal Singh, P. W. 9 and Piwan Singh P. W. 10 proves that three years before the present incident Mukand Singh had broken the leg of Naurang Singh. That evidence is clear and stands unrebutted. and it shows that the relations, of the Appellant with Mukand Singh were extremely strained.

It is true that the prosecution has led no evidence to prove the immediate cause for the accused to trespass into the house of Mukand Singh and to take away his life and the life of his son but that failure cannot affect the direct proof of the murders and the injuries to Mst. Tej Kaur nor can the want of evidence on that point mitigate the gravity of the crimes committed.

None of the eye-witnesses or other witnesses had any axe to grind against the Appellant and they have given a straightforward account of what they had themselves seen. There is no circumstance to suspect that Naurang Singh had been substituted for an un-known offender. The nature of the injuries given to Mukand Singh and Bhan Singh and the force with which they must have been given clearly indicate that the offender who had entered the house at that hour of the night and had opened an attack upon Mukand Singh who was then asleep had no other intention but to kill him.

The callous and brutal way in which not only he killed Mukand Singh but put to death an innocent boy as well when he tried to rise, simply because he was the son of Mukand Singh, speaks of his intentions. The vindictive cruelty with which he continued is further made manifest by his attack upon a defenceless lady Mst. Tej Kaur who at the risk of her own life had cried and tried to save her husband from the rain of gandasa blows.

Taking all the direct and circumstan tial evidence into consideration, we have no doubt whatsoever that it was Naurang Singh who had put Mukund Singh and his son Bhan Singh to death and had injured Mst. Tej Kaur with his deadly gandasa. The offences committed with re gard to Mukand Singh and Bhan Singh are clearly those falling u/s 302, I.P.C.

He has also been properly convicted u/s 326, I.P.C. for the injuries to Mst. Tej Kaur. The sentence of death is the appropriate sentence for the murders. We, therefore, dismiss his appeal and, confirm the sentence of death passed upon him.

Chopra, J.

I agree.