Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007
Date of Decision : February 10, 2009
Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa .... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB SINGH GILL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Parveen Bhadu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. S. S. Gill, Addl. A. G., Punjab.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. :
Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa has preferred this appeal to impugn
judgment and order dated 07.06.2006 of learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda,
whereby the appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 450 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and sentenced as under :-
Under Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year.
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 2
Under Section 450 IPC Since the punishment has been
awarded under the major offence
under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, so no separate sentence
has been awarded under Section 450
of the IPC.
Appellant’s mother and co-accused Gurmeet Kaur, however,
stands acquitted by the Sessions Judge.
Prosecution case in brief is as under :-
On 18.03.2003, complainant Balbir Singh, resident of Village
Bhai Rupa, was sleeping in his house. He and his wife Balwinder Kaur
(since deceased) were sleeping in the courtyard with their younger daughter.
Their other three daughters including Veerpal Kaur aged 16-17 years and
their only son Chamkaur Singh aged 15-16 years were sleeping in the room.
Electric bulb was lighting in the courtyard. At about 11:00 P.M., appellant-
Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa, son of Gurmeet Kaur sister of the deceased
Balwinder Kaur, came there armed with a sword. Due to commotion, the
complainant and his wife woke up. The appellant said that they were
feeling ashamed and humiliated because bad character persons had been
visiting the house of the complainant. Saying so, the appellant inflicted
sword blow to Balwinder Kaur, who raised her right hand to save herself
and the blow landed on the fingers. The appellant inflicted second sword
blow thrust-wise on the neck of Balwinder Kaur. The sword pierced her
neck on left side. Meanwhile, Veerpal Kaur and Chamkaur Singh also came
out in the courtyard. The appellant tried to slip away, but was caught by the
complainant. However, the appellant managed to free himself and escaped
with the sword, but sheath of the sword fell down in the complainant’s
house. Balwinder Kaur died at the spot. Motive was that the appellant felt
that mischievous elements visited the house of the complainant bringing a
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 3
bad name. The complainant went to report the matter to the police. On the
way, near bridge of minor canal in the area of Village Dialpura, police party
headed by SI Harinder Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station
Dialpura, met the complainant, who made statement Ex.P-L to Harinder
Singh, who made his own endorsement Ex.P-L/1 on it and sent it to Police
Station, where on its basis, formal FIR Ex.P-L/2 was recorded. The police
party went to the spot with the complainant, who made supplementary
statement Ex.P-C that appellant’s mother Gurmeet Kaur also accompanied
the appellant to the house of the complainant and exhorted the appellant to
settle the matter once for all by eliminating the deceased.
Dead body of Balwinder Kaur was lying on a cot. SI Harinder
Singh prepared inquest report Ex.P-D and sent the dead body for autopsy
with application Ex.P-E. A pillow and a gadda (mattress) stained with
blood lying on the cot were seized vide memo Ex.P-K. Sheath of sword
found at the spot was also seized vide memo Ex.P-J. Statements of
witnesses including Veerpal Kaur and Chamkaur Singh were recorded.
Rough site plan Ex.P-M was prepared.
Dr. Gurmit Kaur conducted post-mortem examination on the
dead body and found following injuries :-
1. There was incised wound on left side of neck
located one inch below mastoid process and
extending upto angle of mandible. The tail of the
wound was present on angle of mandible. The size
of the wound was 11 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. Clotted
blood was present and the underlying structure
was cut. The margins on wound were sharp and
wound was elliptical in shape.
2. Incised wound with sharp margins located 5 cm
below the first wound and running parallel to it.
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 4
Size of wound was 3 cm x .5 cm and it was skin
deep. Clotted blood was present.
3. Incised wound with sharp margin present on the
dorsam and base of all fore-fingers of right hand.
The size of wound 8 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm. Clotted
blood was present. The wound on right ring finger
was 1 cm deep and its margins were lacerated.
The proximal phalanx of right ring finger was
fractured.
Cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage.
Injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All
the injuries were ante mortem. Sealed parcel of clothes of the deceased
given by the doctor was seized by the police vide memo Ex.P-N. The
appellant was arrested on 26.03.2003. The appellant, after making
disclosure statement (Ex.P-G), got recovered a sword vide memo Ex.P-I in
the presence of Nirmal Singh and ASI Malkiat Singh. Sketch (Ex.P-H) of
the sword was also prepared.
On completion of investigation, the appellant was sent for trial,
whereas Gurmeet Kaur was placed in Column No.2, who was also later on
summoned as accused on prosecution application under Section 319 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Charge under Section 302 IPC against Gurdeep Singh and
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against Gurmeet Kaur and
under Section 450 IPC against both of them was framed. They pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses. HC Gurcharan Singh (PW-1) tendered his affidavit Ex.P-A in
evidence being formal witness. He had taken the dead body for post-
mortem examination. Dr. Gurmit Kaur (PW-2) stated about post-mortem
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 5
examination of the deceased. ASI Malkiat Singh (PW-3) stated that the
appellant, after making disclosure statement, got recovered a sword stained
with blood. Veerpal Kaur (PW-4) and complainant Balbir Singh (PW-5)
broadly stated according to the prosecution version that the appellant killed
Balwinder Kaur by inflicting sword blows. SI Harinder Singh (PW-6)
stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. Constable Baljit
Singh (PW-7) and HC Karamjit Singh (PW-8) tendered their affidavits
being formal witnesses to affirm that the case property was not tampered
with. Chamkaur Singh – PW was given up as unnecessary.
The appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He alleged that the
complainant had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from him and he demanded back the
amount and for this reason, he has been falsely implicated. He also stated
that he was not present at the time of alleged occurrence and Balwinder
Kaur was murdered by the complainant Balbir Singh in connivance with his
daughter Veerpal Kaur.
In defence, the accused examined Kikkar Singh (DW-1), who
stated that on 19.03.2003, at about 08:00 A.M., he visited the house of
Shamsher Singh, where both the accused Gurmeet Kaur and Gurdeep Singh
met him. It was in Village Phulewala.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
case file with their assistance.
The prosecution has led impeccable evidence to bring home the
charge against the appellant. The occurrence took place at about 11:00 P.M.
on 18.03.2003 at the house of complainant Balbir Singh. Consequently,
Balbir Singh and his daughter Veerpal Kaur are natural witnesses. The
deceased was wife of the complainant. The complainant reported the matter
to the police immediately without any delay. His statement, along with
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 6
police endorsement, concluded at 01:30 A.M. i.e. during the night itself and
registration of FIR commenced at 01:45 A.M. and concluded at 02:45 A.M.
Special report reached the Magistrate at 07:30 A.M. The matter was thus
reported to the police very promptly and even special report reached the
Magistrate without any delay. Detailed manner of occurrence has been
narrated in the FIR and the appellant was also named therein as the sole
culprit. The FIR is thus a very valuable piece of evidence. Balbir Singh
complainant and Veerpal Kaur both eye-witnesses have fully supported the
prosecution case in the witness-box. They have categorically deposed that
the appellant came to their house and caused injuries with sword to
Balwinder Kaur, who resultantly died. The appellant is son of sister of the
deceased and on account of this close relationship, he was not likely to be
falsely implicated in the case. In fact, he was the sole accused named in the
FIR, although later on, his mother Gurmeet Kaur was also named, who
stands acquitted by the trial court. Balbir Singh and Veerpal Kaur are
natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence, which took place at their house at
11:00 P.M., where they were sleeping along with the deceased. Their
statements are also corroborated by the medical evidence. Even sheath of
the sword, used by the appellant to inflict injuries to the deceased, fell at the
spot and was seized from there by the police. Blood stained sword was also
got recovered by the appellant after making disclosure statement. The
witnesses have also stated about motive for the occurrence. Statements of
both the eye-witnesses could not be impeached in their cross-examination.
Their statements, therefore, inspire confidence and the prosecution evidence
is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that motive for the
occurrence is not proved and if undesirable elements visited the house of the
deceased, her own son and daughter or husband and his brother Nirmal
Singh would have opposed the same. The contention cannot be accepted.
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 7
The appellant is also a close relative of the deceased being son of her sister.
The appellant is also resident of the same village and therefore, appellant
felt humiliated on account of aforesaid conduct of the deceased. Moreover,
motive pales into insignificance, when there are eye-witnesses of the
occurrence.
Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that there is a
Police Post in Village Bhai Rupa itself and it is not explained why the
complainant, instead of reporting the matter in the Police Post in the village
itself, proceeded towards Police Station. However, no such specific
question was put to the complainant in his cross-examination as to why he
preferred to proceed to the Police Station instead of reporting the matter to
the police in the Police Post of village itself. In any case, the FIR was
lodged very promptly and therefore, the aforesaid contention cannot be
accepted.
Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that the
complainant did not suffer any injury in the occurrence, although he
allegedly grappled with the appellant. Reason for the same is not far to seek
because the complainant tried to catch the appellant and therefore, the
appellant was interested in getting himself released from the grip of the
complainant and to escape and was not interested in causing injuries to
him, having already achieved his objective of killing the complainant’s wife.
The appellant succeeded in his mission and escaped and fled away.
However, sheath of sword of the appellant was left at the spot on account of
grappling.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no blood
stained earth was lifted by the police from the spot. This argument has no
bearing because it is not even the case of the appellant that the deceased was
not killed at the place alleged by the prosecution. The appellant’s plea was
that the deceased was killed by the complainant and his daughter, but there
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 8
is no material on record to substantiate this plea. Moreover, it has come in
evidence that the blood had not fallen on the ground, probably because
pillow and mattress soaked the blood. The blood stained pillow and
mattress were seized by the police.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that Nirmal
Singh – PW, brother of the complainant, was given up. However, Nirmal
Singh was not a material witness because he was not eye-witness of the
occurrence. He was witness of disclosure statement and recovery of sword
at the instance of the appellant, but the same has been proved by ASI
Malkiat Singh (PW-3) and SI Harinder Singh (PW-6). Nirmal Singh,
therefore, was rightly given up by the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that Chamkaur
Singh – PW, son of the deceased, has also been given up and it probablizes
the defence version that the complainant and Veerpal Kaur murdered the
deceased. The argument is without any substance. Both Veerpal Kaur and
Balbir Singh have stepped into the witness-box. They are eye-witnesses of
the occurrence and they have deposed against the appellant as per
prosecution version. Consequently, it would have been futile to examine
Chamkaur Singh as well relating to the same fact. Evidence is to be
weighed and not counted. It is the quality and not the quantity of the
evidence that matters. It is not imperative for the prosecution to examine all
witnesses of the same fact. No particular number of witnesses is necessary
to prove a fact, as provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Non-
examination of Chamkaur Singh does not give rise to any adverse inference
against the prosecution case, when two other eye-witnesses have been
examined.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the
appellant, who was alone, could have easily been over-powered by the
complainant and his son Chamkaur Singh and daughter Veerpal Kaur. The
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 9
argument cannot be accepted because the complainant did try to over-power
the appellant but he succeeded in escaping. The appellant was armed with a
sword and had already killed Balwinder Kaur. In these circumstances,
Veerpal Kaur and Chamkaur Singh might not have dared to intervene or
might not have got opportunity to intervene.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is
contradiction in the statements of HC Gurcharan Singh (PW-1), Veerpal
Kaur (PW-4), Balbir Singh (PW-5) and SI Harinder Singh (PW-6)
regarding the number of persons, who had gathered at the spot. However,
such contradiction regarding trivial and insignificant fact cannot be given
any importance in a murder case. The fact as to how many persons gathered
after the occurrence is hardly of any significance. Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that no independent witness has been examined
although many persons gathered at the spot. The submission is devoid of
merit because those persons gathered after the occurrence and had not
witnessed the occurrence. It may be highlighted that the occurrence took
place at 11:00 P.M. in a village and obviously, people were asleep when the
occurrence took place and they were attracted to the spot when alarm was
raised. No independent witness had witnessed the occurrence and therefore,
no such witness could be examined.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that it is
improbable that the appellant was roaming freely after having committed
the murder, so as to be arrested by the police. The argument has no force
because the appellant was arrested a week after the occurrence, although SI
Harinder Singh has stated that he had been searching for the appellant
earlier as well.
Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that no
complaint was previously made against the appellant regarding any
undesirable activity or any threat extended by him to the deceased.
Crl. Appeal No. 513-DB of 2007 10
However, it is not the prosecution case that the appellant is a vagabond or a
habitual criminal or had earlier threatened the deceased.
From the discussion aforesaid, it emerges that the prosecution
evidence is cogent and credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is thus without any merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or
shall be arrested to undergo the remaining sentence.
( L. N. MITTAL )
JUDGE
February 10, 2009 ( MEHTAB SINGH GILL )
monika JUDGE