Surjit Singh @ Kaku vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present appeal has been filed by Surjit Singh @ Kaku. He was tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa in case FIR No. 245 dated 18.9.2000 registered at Police Station Rania Distt. Sirsa under Sections 302/34 IPC.

The learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa came to the conclusion that it was a case of sudden fight without any pre-meditation. Therefore, no offence u/s 302 IPC was made out and, thus, convicted the appellant for offence u/s 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. However, co-accused of the appellant Charanjit Kaur and Jasvir Singh were acquitted of the charge.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction recorded for offence u/s 304 Part II IPC and the sentence awarded for the same. FIR in the present case was lodged on the basis of statement Ex.PK made by Surjit Kaur wife of deceased Bhagwan Singh. She stated that she was issueless. She was residing along with her husband. On 18.9.2000 at about 7.00 A.M., when Charanjit Kaur wife of Jasvir Singh alias Jassa, the neighbour, was extracting the electric energy through electric wire, when the wire was removed same fell on a small Neem tree standing in the courtyard of the complainant. Complainant objected and stated that there is a need to protect the Neem tree as in old age they sit beneath the Neem tree. This led to scuffle between Charanjit Kaur and Surjit Kaur PW-8 and they started grappling. Bhagwan Singh husband of the complainant came forward to separate them. At that time, Surjit Singh and Jasvir Singh came to help Charanjit Kaur. They started beating Bhagwan Singh husband of the complainant. Bhagwan Singh caught hold of Charanjit Kaur. Jasvir Singh gave a Gandasa blow from its reverse side to Bhagwan Singh. At that time, appellant Surjit Singh, who was having a small knife in his hand, gave a blow of it in the chest of Bhagwan Singh due to which Bhagwan Singh fell down. Complainant raised a noise which attracted Jeet Singh Panch and son of her sister. According to witness, these persons had witnessed the occurrence.

The abovesaid FIR was investigated and a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.

The appellant Surjit Singh @ Kaku along with his brother Jasvir Singh and bhabhi Charanjit Kaur wife of Jasvir Singh was charged for offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having committed murder of Bhagwan Singh on 18.09.2000 in the area of village Kariwala District Sirsa. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Dr. Kanshi Ram Bhadoo PW-1 on 19.9.2000 at 10.30 AM along with other two Medical Officers had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Bhagwan Singh and found following injury:

An incised wound measuring 3.5 cms x 1 cm was present vertically on front of chest in sternal area, 8 cms. medial to left nipple. The wound was elliptical in shape.

On dissection, underlying sternum was cut. On further dissection the wound was present upto the ascending aorta. The aorta was cut on its anterior aspect, vertically. Whole of thoracic cavity was full of blood. The corresponding cut was present in the shirt.

According to Doctor, cause of death was haemmorrhagic shock, as a result of injury to ascending aorta which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. No other injury was found on the dead body. Surjit Kaur appeared as PW-8 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. Sh. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the appellant has highlighted following portion of the testimony of PW-8:

Then Charanjit Kaur accused caught hold and twisted the testicle of my husband Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter, accused Jasvir placed a gandasa blow on backside near the shoulder of my husband Bhagwan Singh. I saved myself. The accused murdered my husband. I tried to save my husband, but in vain, as I was alone. PWs Baaj Singh and Sohan Singh also reached the spot.

This witness further admitted in the cross-examination that her husband was wearing a small kirpan, along with its belt. The kirpan had a cover. This witness further stated that occurrence took place in the court-yard of her house. Baaj Singh appeared as PW-9. He stated that appellant was armed with knife and gave knife blow to Bhagwan Singh. He further stated that the police reached at the spot and took into possession kirpan and gandasa from there. Kanshi Ram Constable PW-2, Tarsem Lal HC PW-3, Ashok Kumar Constable Pw-4, Joginder Singh PW-5 had tendered their affidavits Ex.PD, Ex.PE, Ex.PF and Ex.PH respectively to prove link evidence. Pala Ram Constable PW-10 tendered affidavit Ex.PN. Radhey Sham Constable proved scaled site plan Ex.PJ. Ajit Singh PW-7 proved the photograph of the spot Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 and negatives Ex.P9 to Ex.P14. Punjab Singh SI proved various facets of the investigation. Thereafter, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. They denied the same. Accused Surjit Singh alias Kaku gave following version:

I am innocent. I was passing through the street, where Bhagwan Singh deceased was abusing my brother and his wife. I asked Bhagwan Singh not to abuse my brother and his wife, but he refused to oblige me. I also started abusing Bhagwan Singh deceased and thereafter we grappled with each other. Bhagwan Singh deceased took out his small kirpan from its cover, which was hanging around his neck and tried to inflict injury to me. In that process of struggle, the kirpan pierced in the chest of Bhagwan Singh accidentally.

No witness was examined in defence.

Sh. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the appellant has advanced following submissions:

a) That according to PW-8 Surjit Kaur, PW-9 Baaj Singh reached at the spot when the occurrence was over. Therefore Surjit Kaur PW-8 was solitary witness of the occurrence and her testimony should not be relied without any corroboration.

b) That in the rough site plan and the scaled site plan, Investigating Agency had shown that occurrence had taken place in the street whereas in cross-examination PW-8 Surjit Kaur stated that occurrence had taken place in the courtyard of their house, hence solitary witness of the occurrence, PW-8 Surjit Kaur is not a truthful witness.

c) That from the investigation, the defence version of the appellant is proved as it is the stand of the appellant that occurrence had taken place in the street. It is further contended that kirpan was recovered from the spot and the deceased, as per the testimony of Surjit Kaur PW-8 was armed with kirpan. This lent corroboration to the defence version.

Counsel for the State has contended that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty and occular account given by the witnesses PW-8 Surjit Kaur and PW-9 Baaj Singh is reliable.

I find no merit in the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant. In the defence version propounded, appellant has admitted presence of Surjit Kaur even otherwise also Surjit Kaur being the wife of the deceased was expected to be at her house in the early hours of the morning. Her presence at the spot was natural, probable and convincing. Therefore, presence of Surjit Kaur cannot be doubted. The version given by the defence that due to grappling, deceased suffered injury from his own kirpan accidentally, being improbable, is to be rejected. Therefore, this Court after going through the evidence brought on record, is of the view that the finding of the trial Court ought to be affirmed.

In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 2000. Appellant was a young person, aged above 18 years, but less than 19 years. Wife of his elder brother was having an altercation, and grappling with Surjit Kaur PW-8. It is at the spur of the moment, without any pre-meditation that the appellant swayed by passions and passion when emotions were running high caused a solitary blow.

Thus taking into consideration the totality of mitigating circumstances and the fact that appellant has suffered protracted trial of about ten years, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced from 5 years RI to 3 years RI.

With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of.