Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005
Date of Decision: November 5, 2009
Anil Kumar .....Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.388-DB of 2005
Sanjay Kumar, Dalbir Singh and Ajay Kumar
.....Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.422-DB of 2005
Ashok Kumar
.....Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Swarn Singh Rana, Advocate
for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005.
Mr.Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.388-DB of 2005.
Mr.Aseem Rai, Advocate
for the appellant in Crl.Appeal Nos. 388-DB and 422-DB of
2005.
Ms.Gurvin H.Singh, Additional A.G., Punjab.
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -2-
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of all the aforementioned three
appeals as they have arisen out of the same judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 28.3.2005 passed by the then Additional Sessions
Judge, Rupnagar, vide which accused Sanjay Kumar was convicted for
offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be
referred as `IPC’) whereas the remaining accused were convicted for offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and all the
accused were also convicted for offences punishable under Section 201 read
with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month
for offence under Section 201 IPC. However, the sentences awarded to the
accused were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that Sarmukh Singh son
of Bakshish Singh, Ex Sarpanch of Village Bheora, Tehsil and District
Ropar (PW1) was informed by some ladies of his village on 2.2.1999 at
about 5.00 p.m. that the dead body of a person was lying near the bridge of
river when they had gone to answer the call of nature. The Sarpanch
alongwith Mehan Singh, Jaswinder Singh and some other persons from his
village reached the said place and found that dead body of a young man,
aged about 27 to 28 years, was lying there and that his face and beard were
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -3-
stained with blood. As the dead body was not from that area, none of them
could identify the same. He informed the police Station Sadar on telephone.
The Assistant Sub Inspector Baldev Singh (PW5) reached the place of
occurrence after receiving the message and recorded the statement of
Sarmukh Singh, Sarpanch, which is Exhibit PA, on which he made his
endorsement Exhibit PA/1 and sent the same to the police Station for
registration of the case, on the basis of which first information report
Exhibit PA/2 was recorded for offence under Section 304 A IPC. He also
prepared inquest report on the dead body Exhibit PW5/A. He also lifted
blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and after sealing the same
into a parcel, had taken into possession vide memo. Exhibit PW5/B. He
also took the photographs of the dead body. The photograph is Exhibit P1
and negative is Exhibit P2. Post mortem examination on the dead body was
also got done. As the dead body was unidentified, last rites were got
performed from Municipal Council, Rupnagar. The Assistant Sub Inspector
had also taken into possession blood stained clothes of the deceased, i.e.,
pent, shirt, underwear, pair of socks and one shoe.
3. On 4.2.1999 Paramjit Singh (PW3) accompanied by Harbans
Singh (PW2), Sarpanch of Village Dugri, reached the police Station Sadar,
Ropar and lodged report Exhibit PB with Didar Singh, Inspector, Station
House Officer, Police Station Ropar (PW18), on the basis of which offences
punishable under Sections 302/ 201/364/ 148 read with Section 149 IPC
were added. According to Paramjit Singh (PW3) about 1-1/2 months prior
to this occurrence Jaspal Singh alias Pala, resident of Village Dugri
(deceased) purchased Van bearing registration No.DID 1974 from Jagtar
Singh of the same village and the said van was got attached with taxi stand
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -4-
of Sahnewal. Paramjit started working with Jaspal Singh as a conductor on
the said van. On 1.2.1999 at about 10.00 a.m., Dalbir Singh and Sanjay
Kumar (both accused) came to the taxi stand and asked for booking of the
van for going to Naina Devi and settled the fare at Rs.1100/- and Rs.100/-
were paid as advance by Sanjay Kumar accused. Thereafter Sanjay Kumar,
Dalbir Singh alongwith Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ajay Kumar (all
accused) came for going to Naina Devi. All of them were known to them.
Paramjit Singh occupied the seat in the dicky of the van.
4. At about 10.00 p.m. they reached near bridge before Police
Line, Ropar. Anil Kumar accused asked Jaspal Singh to stop the van as he
wanted to urinate. On his request, van was stopped by Jaspal Singh.
However, as soon as the van was stopped accused caught hold of Jaspal
Singh. Accused Sanjay gave rod blow on the head of Jaspal Singh and
Dalbir Singh accused gave fist blow, which hit on the nose of the Jaspal
Singh. Jaspal Singh was dragged by the accused upto bushes. Dalbir Singh
gave churra blow on the neck of Jaspal Singh due to which he died. Dalbir
Singh accused snatched his golden ring and Sanjay accused snatched his
watch and Ashok had taken away his purse. Paramjit was also dragged from
the van to the bushes. After committing murder of Jaspal Singh, Paramjit
was again dragged to the van. They were talking that they would also
murder him and would take away the van with them. Accused Sanjay
started driving the van. However, the van went out of order and hence, all
the other four accused started pushing the van in order to start it. Paramjit
Singh took benefit of the same and slipped from the van and hid himself in
the bushes. He did not come on the road so that they may not find him and
murder him.
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -5-
5. On the next day, he reached Gurudwara Anandpur Sahib and
remained there on that day and night. On 3.2.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., he
reached near village Dugri and narrated the whole occurrence to Harbans
Singh, Ex.Sarpanch of Dugri, who accompanied him to the house of Jaspal
Singh and then narrated the whole occurrence to his family members. On
the next day, i.e., on 4.2.1999, they came to the police Station Sadar Ropar
and lodged the report. Paramjit Singh had also taken Didar Singh, Inspector
to the place of occurrence. Clothes and belongings of deceased Jaspal
Singh were also shown to him and the same were identified by him. He had
also taken the police party to the place near Anandpur Sahib from where he
slipped.
6. On the night intervening 1.2.1999 and 2.2.1999, police
officials were present at barrier toba when van bearing registration No.DID
1974 came from Anandpur Sahib, which was being driven by Sanjay
Kumar-accused and all the other accused were also present in the van. The
van was stopped. Sanjay Kumar signed in the register at Sr.No.53 to the
effect that he was driver of the van. The copy of the entry to this effect is
Exhibit PW9/A. As the accused could not show documents of the van,
hence, the van was impounded under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
7. The clothes and photographs of the deceased were also
identified by his brother. The van was taken into possession in this case
from MHC Nanak Ram of Police Station Kot Kehlool. Copy of challan is
Exhibit PW15/A and the van was released in favour of Assistant Sub
Inspector Hari Singh. The van was stopped by Assistant Sub Inspector
Suhuru Ram (PW16) on the night intervening 1.2.1999 and 2.2.1999.
8. Didar Singh (PW18) arrested the accused in this case on
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -6-
19.2.1999, when Ajmer Singh produced the accused before him. He
interrogated all the accused one by one in police custody.
9. Accused Ajay Kumar suffered disclosure statement Exhibit
PW8/A. Accused Dalbir Singh suffered disclosure statement Exhibit
PW8/B. Accused Ashok Kumar suffered disclosure statement Exhibit
PW8/C and Sanjay Kumar suffered disclosure statement Exhibit PW8/D.
As per respective disclosure statements, accused Dalbir Singh got recovered
golden ring, belonging to the deceased, and a daggar. Accused Sanjy
Kumar got recovered one wrist watch belonging to the deceased and an iron
rod. Accused Ajay Kumar got recovered blanket and turban belonging to
the deceased. Accused Ashok Kumar got recovered the purse containing
driving licence and photographs of the deceased.
10. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `Cr.P.C.)
was filed against all the accused.
11. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions by the
then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, accused were charged for offences
punishable under Sections 364/302/201 read with Section 149 IPC.
12. In order to substantiate the allegation against the accused the
prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses.
13. PW1 is Sarmukh Singh, Sarpanch, who first informed the
police regarding presence of dead body of an unidentified person in the area
of Village Bheora. PW2 is Harbans Singh, Sarpanch Village Dugri, who
accompanied the complainant to the police on 4.2.1999 to lodge the report
about the occurrence, as detailed above. PW3 is Paramjit Singh-
complainant and eye witness of the occurrence. PW4 is Head Constable
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -7-
Nanak Ram, who had proved photocopy of register No.19 as Exhibit
PW4/A regarding entry of the van at the naka (barrier). PW5 is Baldev
Singh, Sub Inspector, who had recorded the statement of Sarmukh Singh
and got the first information report registered. PW6 is Head Constable
Sukhdev Singh, who is a formal witness and who had tendered in evidence
affidavit of his statement Exhibit PW6/A. PW7 is Karam Chand, who had
proved register Exhibit PW7/B, which was taken into possession vide
recovery memo Exhibit PW7/A. PW8 is Balwinder Singh brother of
deceased, in whose presence disclosure statements were suffered by the
accused and the recovery was effected by the Investigating Officer. He
also identified the clothes of his brother. PW9 is Constable Avtar Singh in
whose presence the van was intercepted at the barrier in which all the five
accused were travelling. PW10 is Sukhdev Singh, another brother of Jaspal
Singh, who had identified jacket Exhibit P14, shirt Exhibit P15, pant
Exhibit P16, Banyan Exhibit P17 and one single shoe Exhibit P18
belonging to his deceased brother. PW11 is Jaimal Singh Halka Patwari,
who prepared the scaled map of place of occurrence. PW12 is Head
Constable Bakshish Singh in whose presence Maruti van was taken into
custody. PW13 is Constable Devinder Singh, who is also a formal witness
and who had tendered in evidence affidavit of his statement Exhibit
PW13/A. PW14 is Ravinder Pal, Inspector, who had prepared challan in
this case after completion of the investigation. PW15 is Jagan Nath,
Criminal Ahlmad, Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, who
had proved copy of challan of van No.DID 1974 as PW15/A. He also
deposed that the said van was released in favour of Assistant Sub Inspector
Hari Singh of Police Station Sadar, Ropar on 23.2.1999, vide release Order
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -8-
Exhibit PW15/B. PW16 is Assistant Sub Inspector Suhuru Ram, who had
challaned the van and proved the challan Exhibit PW15/A.
14. PW17 is Dr.J.P.S.Sangha, who conducted the post mortem
examination on the unidentified body on 3.2.1999 on police request. He
found the following injuries on his person:
“1. Lacerated wound 5 x 3 cm present on right parieto
temporal area, under lying bone fracture. Membranes
injured. Brain matter laceration present in temporal lobe.
2. Nasal bone fractured depressed.
3. 7 x 2 cm wound with sharp edges present in upper part of
neck. Wound deep up to muscle of the neck.
Other organs were healthy.”
15. He further deposed that the cause of death in this case, in his
opinion, was due to injury no.1, which was sufficient to cause death in
normal course of nature and the same was ante mortem. He had proved
copy of post mortem report as Exhibit PW17/A and PW17/B is the pictorial
diagram showing the seat of injuries. PW17 is Raju Sharma of Sharma
Studio, who had gone to Civil Hospital, Ropar and had taken the
photograph of the dead body, which is Exhibit PW17/1 and the negative is
PW17/2.
16. PW18 is Inspector Didar Singh, the then Inspector, Station
House Officer, Police Station Ropar, who investigated this case and arrested
the accused and effected the recoveries, as per their disclosure statements,
as detailed above. PW19 is Om Parkash, Junior Assistant, DTO Office,
Ludhiana, who had proved driving licence of Jaspal Singh deceased.
PW20 is Assistant Sub Inspector Hari Singh, in whose presence the accused
were produced before Didar Singh, Inspector by Ajmer Singh PW, and in
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -9-
whose presence they were interrogated by Inspector Didar Singh and
recoveries were effected.
17. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded
in which they denied the version of the prosecution witnesses and claimed
to be innocent. Accused Sanjay Kumar had taken the plea that he used to
drive tempo at Ludhiana and that he had quarrelled with Paramjit Singh
witness and due to that grudge he has been involved in this case falsely.
Accused Dalbir Singh had also taken the same plea whereas accused Ashok
Kumar, Anil Kumar and Ajay Kumar had taken the plea that they were not
present in the van and that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
18. None of the accused led any evidence in their defence.
19. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the
accused as aforementioned against which the present appeal has been filed.
20. We have heard learned counsel for the accused, learned
Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and have gone through the whole
record carefully.
21. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants-
accused that there is inordinate delay of three days in reporting the matter to
the police and hence no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of
prosecution witnesses. It has further been argued that there is no
explanation as to why Paramjit Singh, the only alleged eye witness of the
occurrence was spared by the accused. It has further been contended that
the plea taken by Paramjit Singh that he slipped by taking the benefit of
darkness cannot be believed. It has further been contended that Paramjit
Singh was having grudge against accused Sanjay Kumar and Dalbir Singh
as they used to drive tempos together at Ludhiana and hence, he falsely
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -10-
implicated the accused in this case. It has further been contended that, in
any case, no injury was attributed to accused Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar and
Ashok Kumar and hence, it is argued that it cannot be said that they shared
common intention/having common object to commit murder of Jaspal along
with Sanjay Kumar and Dalbir Singh.
22. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Additional
Advocate General, Punjab, that delay in lodging the first information report
has been duly explained. It is further contended that deposition of Paramjit
Singh, eye witness, finds corroboration from the deposition of Sarpanch of
the village as well as from the fact that the van was intercepted by the police
officials on the same night in which accused were travelling and the accused
also got recovered belongings of the deceased and the weapons of offence,
as per their disclosure statements.
23. So far as delay in lodging the first information report is
concerned, the same has been duly explained by Paramjit Singh PW. He
was having threat to his life at the hands of the accused, hence, he was
hiding himself in the bushes on the night intervening 1.2.1999 and 2.2.1999.
He spent one night in Gurudwara due to fear of accused. On 3.2.1999, he
reached village Dugri and met Harbans Singh, Sarpanch of the village to
seek his help. He narrated all the occurrence to him. He accompanied him
to the house of the deceased and narrated the entire occurrence to his family.
On 4.2.1999, he along with Sarpanch visited the police station and lodged
the report. Hence it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the
witness was under fear of being murdered by the accused as he was eye
witness of the occurrence. Moreover though accused Sanjay and Dalbir had
taken the plea that this witness was known to them as they used to work
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -11-
together at Ludhiana, however, they had not adduced any evidence to bring
the assertion that he was having any grudge against them to falsely
implicate them in this case. The fact that they did not cause any harm to
Paramjit Singh though remained unexplained, however the same does not
create any doubt in the version of the prosecution witnesses as there is
nothing as to why he should have deposed falsely against the accused.
24. On the point reliance is also placed upon Ravinder Kumar v.
State of Punjab (SC) 2001 Crl.L.J.4242, relevant paragraphs of which read
as under:
“14. When there is criticism of the ground that FIR in a
case was delayed the Court has to look at the reason why there
was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine causes for
FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be ignorant
of the need for informing the police of a crime without any
lapse of time. This kind of unconversantness is not too
uncommon among urban people also. They might not
immediately think of going to the police station. Another
possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the
informers to reach the police station. The third, which is a
quite common bearing, is that the kith and kin of deceased
might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of
tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the
police station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite
information. Yet another cause is, the persons who are
supposed to give such information themselves could be
physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting
some nebulous information about the incident.
15. We are not providing an exhausting catalogue of
instances which could cause delay in lodging the FIR. Our
effort is to try to point out the stale demand made in the
criminal courts to treat the FIR vitiated merely on the ground of
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -12-delay in its lodgment cannot be approved as a legal corollary.
In any case, where there is delay in making the FIR the court is
to look at the causes are not attributable to any effort to
concoct a version no consequence shall be attached to the
mere delay in lodging the FIR. Vide Zahoor v. State of U.P.
1991 Supl.(1) SCC 372; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab 1991
Suppl.(1) SCC 536; Jamna v. State of U.P. 1994 (1) SCC
185. In Tara Singh (supra) made the following observations:
`It is well settled that the delay in giving the
FIR by itself cannot be ground to doubt the prosecution
case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot
except these villagers to rush to the police station
immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the
kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be
expected to act mechanically with all the promptidue in
giving the report to the police. At times being grief stricken
because of the calamity it may be immediately occur to
them that they should give a report. After all it is but
natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to
go to the police station for giving the report.'”
25 However, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for
the accused that accused Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Ashok Kumar did
not share any common intention/having common object with Sanjay Kumar
and Dalbir Singh to commit murder of Jaspal and they were merely
accompanying Sanjay Kumar and Dalbir Singh. They did not cause any
injury to the deceased. They were also not having any weapon with them.
They also did not cause injury to Paramjit Singh PW. As per prosecution
version even the dead body of Jaspal Singh was not dragged by any one of
them. Hence, they cannot be held guilty for offences punishable under
Sections 302/201 read with Section 149 IPC. Hence, conviction of accused
Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Ashok Kumar for offences under Sections
Crl.Appeal No.335-DB of 2005 -13-
302/201 read with Section 149 IPC, as held by the learned trial Court, is set
aside and by accepting their appeal we acquit them of the charges framed
against them.
26. However, so far as accused Sanjay Kumar and Dalbir Singh are
concerned, learned trial Court has rightly convicted them for offences under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC, as both of them caused injuries to Jaspal which
proved fatal and, thereafter, concealed the dead body in the bushes. Hence,
we do not want to interfere in the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed against them by learned trial Court.
27. Hence the appeal qua accused Sanjay Kumar and Dalbir Singh
is, hereby, dismissed.
(Mehtab S.Gill) (Ram Chand Gupta)
Judge Judge
November 5, 2009
meenu
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes/No.