Pritpal Singh vs The State of Punjab

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Pritpal Singh appellant, who is a young lad of 15/16 years, stands convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on a charge of murder of the deceased.

Alleged immoral attentions of the deceased towards the sister of the accused are said to have actuated the latter to take the life of the former.

The prosecution case in brief is that Baldev Krishan deceased, who was an unmarried youngman, was running a grocery shop in village Balkhandi, while his other brothers were living in village Dharamkot. The deceased was in the village for about three days prior to the occurrence. On the day of occurrence i.e., 9th February, 1971 at about 9 or 9-30 a.m. Pritpal Singh accused started abusing the deceased. Rajinder Pal P.W. 1, brother of the deceased, called to his house Py?re Lal P.W. 3, Lajpat Rai P.W. 4 and one Hans Raj in order to pacify the accused. On being asked by them as to what was the reason for his abusing the deceased, the mother of the accused mentioned that the deceased was in the habit of staring at their house with evil intentions which they could not tolerate. At this, in order to pacify the accused, the above said witnesses prevailed upon the deceased to leave the village and go to village Balkhandi, where he was running his shop. About half an hour thereafter the deceased started for village Balkhandi on a cycle. He was accompanied by Rajinder Pal P. W., his brother, who had come to see him off upto the maingate of the street. When the deceased was about to cross the said gate, the accused who was hiding behind the wall of the gate, emerged with a knife in his hand and and saying ''be prepared, you would not be allowed to escape'' plunged his knife in the neck of the deceased. Besides Rajinder Pal P.W. the occurrence was witnessed by Pyare Lal P.W. The accused ran away from the spot carrying the knife with him.

The deceased succumbed to his injury on the spot. An information of the occurreuce was conveyed to Police Station, Dharamkot, at about 10-15 a.m. by Rajinder Pal P.W.

S.I. Bant Singh P.W. 10 on reaching the place of occurrence held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and despatched the same to mortuary and thereafter took into possession bloodstained earth, cycle Exhibit P. 4, bloodstained coat Exhibit P. 1, and pants Exhibit P. 2 of Rajinder Pal P.W. which got soild when he was trying to comfort the deceased. The accused who was arrested on 11th February, 1971 on being interrogated by the investigating officer made a disclosure statement Exhibit P.H. in the presence of Kidar Nath and Bishambar Dass P.W. 6 and got recovered bloodstained knife in pursuance thereof. The blood on the knife was determined to be of human origin as per report Exhibit P.U. of the Serologist.

Dr. Amrit Lal Aggarwal P.W. 2 performed autopsy on the dead body of She deceased on 9th February, 1971 at 4-50 a.m., and discovered thereon a solitary injury of the following description which was opined to have been given with a sharp edged weapon like the knife and described as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature :

An incised wound 1"3/4x1" on the right side of the neck at a distance of 2" from the lower part of the right ear. It was 3/4" deep and was transverse in direction. On dissection of the injuries, the underlying structures i.e. the muscles, the cartodartery, the jugwlar neck veins completely cut. The second cervical vertebera also broken into pieces.

Death in his opinion was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the neck'' which was described as an ante-mortem one. The probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was slated to be ''immediate'' and that between death and post mortem ''less than 12 hours''.

The prosecution case rests, besides the medical evidence, on ocular testimony furnished by Rajinder Pal P.W. 1, Pyare Lal P.W. 3, the evidence of motive furnished in addition to the abovesaid two eyewitnesses by Lajpat Rai P.W. 4, and the recovery evidence deposed to by Bishamber Dass P.W. 6 Shri Ram Ahlmad P.W. 8 of the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Zira, deposed to his producing the file of the case State v. Baldev Krishan u/s 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code and further deposed that the said proceedings were started on the application of Onkar Singh, father of the accused, Exhibit P.M., the notice whereof was given to the deceased Baldev Krishan on 13th August, 1970, and ultimately he was discharged on 13th April, 1971 on merits. A.S.I. Bashesher Nath P.W. 9 deposed to his submitting the Kalandra of the said case against Baldev Krishan in the court. S.I. Bant Singh, the investigating Officer, deposed to the investigation part of the prosecution case.

When examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and after perusing the record with their help, we are of the opinion that this appeal must fail for the reasons hereinafter detailed.

The only criticism levelled against the testimony of Rajinder Pal P.W. who had witnessed the occurrence and had lodged the F.I.R., is that he being an interested witness, his testimony be ruled out of consideration as unreliable.

The contention advanced does not deserve serious notice as the present case is the one where the replacement of the real culprit by an innocent one cannot, even remotely, be considered,

It is a case of single accused. A near relation like Rajinder Pal P.W. would be the last person to have implicated an innocent person and that too a young lad like the present accused-appellant and allow the real culprit to go scot-fee. There is not even a suggestion to Rajinder Pal PW that there existed any animosity between him and the appellant or the latter''s father Onkar Singh. There were security proceedings against the deceased no doubt at the instance of the father of the appellant, but then on that score if any body was to be implicated possibly that could have been the father of the appellant Onkar Singh and not the appellant. Moreover, this witness appears to us a natural witness of the occurrence. In the light of the earlier occurrence, he may have decided to accompany the deceased upto the maingate of the street in order to safely see himself. A suggestion to him that he was at his shop and was attracted to the scene of occurrence later on was firmly denied by him. The very prompt F.I.R., which with equal promptness was transmitted to the llaqa Magistrate from the police station, adds more than due plausibility to his denial and probablises his verson of the occurrence in the Court. His testimony receives combo ration from that of Pyare Lal PW3 who is not in any manner related to the deceased. It was suggested to Pyare Lal PW3, that there had occurred some dispute between the father of the appellant and this witness when the latter wanted to get the house occupied by the former vacated. No doubt, there had been that little dispute between them, but surely the nature and the magnitude of that dispute was not such as to actuate this witness to perjure and implicate a young lad in such a grave crime. By and large, he has given a very cogent and straight forward evidence and the defence was unable to surface any infirmity in his testimoney despite the cross-examination which could easily be termed as very lengthy and gruelling.

Lajpat Rai and Bhardwaj Sehgal P.Ws lend further assurance to the testimony of the abovesaid two eye-witnesses both with regard to the earlier incident, as also regarding the actual occurrence. These are the two witnesses who had reached the place of occurrence immediately thereafter and were apprised of the same by Pyara Lal and Rajinder Pal P.Ws. Both of them are respectable witnesses-one of them i.e., Lajpat Rai P.W. is a Municipal Commissioner. They are wholly disinterested witnesses, for neither of them in any manner is interested in the deceased or inimical towards the appellant.

The plausibility of the eye-witness account stands further strengthened from the above evidence. Testimony of Siri Ram Ahlmad P.W.8 and Bashesher Nath PW9 goes to show that the deceased was suspected of ill-becoming behaviour to words the sister of the appellant. Since on the morning of the occurrence, the appellant and his mother considered it necessary to abuse the deceased on account of his staring at their house with evil intention goes to show only this that despite the security proceedings the deceased had continued on the same evil course from which he had been asked by the father of the appellant to desist and so that conduct of the deceased must have determined the young blood to avenge the insult. Hence the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased.

The evidence of recovery further lends assurance to the ocular version, for Bishambar Dass PW6 who had deposed to the disclosure statement and consequent recovery of the bloodstained knife at the instance of the appellant, had no animous against the deceased nor any material circumstances were suggested to cast any doubt on his veracity.

Lastly, the medical evidence is yet another circumstance which lends assurance to the ocular version both with record to the time of the occurrence and the nature of the weapon used.

For the reasons stated the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant and accordingly we hold that the trial Court has righly convicted the appellant for an offence u/s 302 I. P.C.

The question that now survives for consideration is with regard to the sentence that can appropriately be imposed on the appellant-he being at the time of occurrence only a young lad of less than 16 years of age. In view of the age of the appellant at the time of the occurrence, section 27 of the East Punjab Children Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. 39 of 1949), is clearly attracted, the provisions of which are a� under:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, no person who was a child at the date of the commission of the offence shall be sentenced to death or transported or committed to prison for any offence or in default of payment of fine, damages or costs :

Provided that a child who is fourteen years of age or upwards may be committed to prison where the court certifies that he is of so unruly or of so deprived a character that he is not a fit person to be sent to a certified school and time none of the other merhods in which the case may legally be dealt with is suitable.

The Word ''child'' has been defined in section 3(c) of the abovesaid act as under :

In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,--

* * *

(c) ''child'' means a person under the age of 16 years, and when used with reference to a child sent to a certified school applies to that child during the whole period of his detension, notwithstanding that the child may have attained the age of 16 years ;

* * *

Since the appellant, a young lad of 15/16 years, was smarting under an insult and had given just one knife blow to the deceased, he cannot be considered a character which can fit in the language of the proviso to section 27 of the said Act, and so no sentence of imprisonment can be imposed on the appellant. However, the nature and magnitude of the crime is such that the mode of dealing with him, as provided u/s 35 of the said Act, too cannot be considered appropriate. For reference''s sake, the provisions of section 35 are quoted below :

Where a child charged with any offence is tried by any court, and the court is satisfied of his guilt, the court shall take into consideration the manner in which, under the provisions of this or any other Act enabling the court to deal with the case, the case be dealt with, namely, whether :--

(a) by discharging the offender after due admonition ; or

(b) by committing the offender to the care of his parent, guardian, other adult relative, or other fit person on such parent, guardian, relative or person executing a bond to be responsible for his good behaviour ; or

(c) by so discharging the offender and placing him under the supervision of a person named by the court ; or

(d) by releasing the offender on probation of good conduct; or

(e) by sending the offender to a certified school ; or

(f) by ordering the offender to pay a fine ; or

(g) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to pay a fine ; or

(h) were the offender is child of fourteen years or upwards to whom the proviso to section 27 applies, by sentencing him to imprisonment ; or

(i) by dealing with the case in any other manner in which it may legally be dealt with ;

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the court to deal with any case in any manner in which it could not deal with the case apart from this section

In our view, therefore, his case attracts the provisions of sub-section

(1) of section 34 of the Act, which are reproduced below :--

34 (1) When a child is found to have committed an offence of so serious a nature that the court is of opinion that no punishment which, under the provisions of this Act, it is authorised to inflict is sufficient, the court shall order the offender to be kept in sate custody in such place or manner as it thinks fit and report the case for the orders of the State Government.

In such a situation, a recommendation has to be made to the Government to detain him in a Borstal institution for a period which the Government may consider appropriate. Since the appellant is on bail, we therefore direct that he be taken into custody and committed to Borstel and Children Institute, Faridkot, and kept there for the period as determined by the Government. The appeal therefore stands disposed of accordingly.

Manmohan Singh Gujral, J.

I agree.