Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crimianl Appeal No.100-DB of 2001
Date of Decision: August 07, 2008
Iqbal Singh ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Grewal
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal,Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Gurveen Singh,Additional Advocate General,Punjab
* * *
Sabina, J.
Vide this judgment, Criminal Appeals bearing No. 100-DB of
2001 and 1250-SB of 2000 would be disposed of as both the appeals have
arisen out of the judgments relating to the same occurrence.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Ajit Singh
had gone to visit Jaswant Singh (father-in-law of his son) on 20.10.1998 at
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 2
about 11.00 a.m. When he entered the house after opening main gate, he
found that Jaswant Singh was lying in the Court yard with his face on the
ground in a pool of blood. There were many injuries on his head with
sharp edged wapon. He suspected that Jaswant Singh had been murdered
by his grand son Iqbal Singh @ Sonu, Jaspal Singh @ Baggi along with
their mother Harjit Kaur. The said suspects used to demand share in the
property from Jaswant Singh who was not ready to give his property to
them. On the basis of the statement of complainant, formal FIR was
registered. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,
challan was presented against accused Iqbal Singh @ Sonu. Charge was
framed against accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana under
Sections 302, 404 IPC on 26.2.1999 in FIR No. 119 dated 20.10.1999 at
Police Station Sahnewal. In another FIR No. 123 dated 24.10.1998
registered at Police Station Sahnewal, charge was framed against the
accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act on the same date. Accused did
not plead guilt and claimed trial in both the cases.
Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused in
both the cases. Accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two
years and a fine of Rs.1000/- in the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 3
under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and under Section 404 IPC,
he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a
fine of Rs.1000/- in FIR No. 119 dated 20.10.1999.
Aggrieved by the same, accused has filed the abovementioned
two appeals.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned State counsel and have gone through the record available on the file
carefully.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Iqbal Singh has argued that
the accused had been falsely involved in this case to deny him his share of
property as his father had already died. The complainant had involved the
accused in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. No person from the
neighborhood had been joined at the time of investigation or alleged
recovery of `kulhari’ and `revolver’ from the accused.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the
prosecution case was duly proved from the statement of the prosecution
witnesses. Accused was last seen coming from the house of the deceased.
Accused had also suffered an extra judicial confession with regard to
commission of offence before PW 1. The weapon used at the time of
commission of offence i.e. `kulhari’ was recovered from the accused. On
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 4
the basis of his disclosure statement, `revolver’ in question was also
recovered from the accused. Accused did not attend the cremation of his
grand father. On an earlier occasion, accused had inflicted injuries on the
person of his grand mother i.e. wife of deceased. Jaswant Singh was not a
permanent resident of village Sahnewal and used to often visit England
where his sons were residing.
The present case rests on circumstantial evidence.
It has been held in Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna
Satyanarayana, 2000(3) Recent Crininal Reports 96(SC) that in a
case of circumstantial evidence, in order to establish the guilt of the
accused, it was necessary to prove the circumstances fully and it was
further held as under:-
“(i) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
(ii) All facts so established, should be consistent only
with hypothesis of the guilt and inconsistent with
innocence.
(iii) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of
guilt of any person other than the accused.
(iv) In order to justify an inference of guilt,
circumstances must be incompatible with
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 5
innocence of accused.
(v) Cumulative effect of the circumstances must be
such as to negate the innocence of the accused and
bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
(vi) Where accused on being asked, offers no
explanation or explanation is found to be false,
then that itself forms an additional link in
chain of circumstances.”
Prosecution case is to be examined in this perspective.
FIR in this case was lodged by the complainant who had gone to visit the
house of the deceased on 20.10.1998 at about 11.00 a.m. Murder of Jaswant
Singh was committed on the night of Diwali festival. In these
circumstances, visit of the complainant to the house of Jaswant Singh seems
to be natural as daughter of the complainant was married to the son of
deceased. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of
the complainant with regard to murder of Jaswant Singh deceased.
PW1 Baldev Singh, is Sarpanch of village Sahibana who has
deposed that he had good relations with Iqbal Singh and on 22.10.1998, he
was present in his fields where accused Iqbal Singh met him and confessed
before him that he had committed murder of his grand father-Jaswant Singh.
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 6
He did not have time to produce the accused before Police on that day and
accused thereafter did not come to him. On the next day, he reported the
matter of confession of guilt of the accused to SHO Hardev Singh.
Confession made by an accused to a Sarpanch of the village appears to be
believable and reliance can be placed on it. The statement of this witness
was recorded by the Police on 23.10.1998 and,thus, it cannot be said that
there was any delay in recording the statement of this witness.
PW4 Balbir Singh is the witness who had last seen the accused
coming out of the house of Jaswant Singh, deceased armed with `kulhari.’
When the said witness inquired from the accused as to what was the matter,
the accused replied that he would meet him later on. The said wintess in his
cross-examination deposed that on the next day, he was not present in the
village as he had gone out of station on account of the fact that his daughter
was not well and he returned to the village on 21.10.1998. Statement of
this witness was recorded on 21.10.1998 without any delay. The said
witness belongs to village Sahibana and his presence near the house of
deceased appears to be natural.
PW2 Bahadur Singh is the son of deceased who returned back
from England on 22.10.1998 after he was informed about the murder of his
father. As per this witness, the dead body was cremated by them and
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 7
accused Iqbal Singh was not present in the house. When they came to their
village, he accompanied SHO Hardev Singh in search of accused Iqbal
Singh who was found standing at the bus stop of village Pawan . Accused
was apprehended by the Police and from his pant, .32 bore revolver loaded
with six cartridges belonging to his father was recovered and it was taken in
possession.
Complainant Ajit Singh while appearing in the witness box as
PW3 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR and further deposed that
Iqbal Singh had earlier given `kirpan’ blow to the wife of Jaswant Singh and
had got effected compromise between the parties.
Investigating Officer, Hardev Singh,PW9 has deposed with
regard to the investigation conducted by him on the spot and further deposed
that on 24.10.1998, .32 bore revolver and six cartridges from the possession
of the accused were recovered, at the time of his arrest. On 25.10.1998,
accused was interrogated and he disclosed that he had kept concealed one
`kulhari’ in the wheat husk lying in the room and the said fact was in the
exclusive knowledge of the accused and he could get the same recovered.
On the basis of said disclosure statement, `kulhari’ was recovered from the
disclosed place. PW5 Mohammad Iqbal was joined at the time of the said
recovery who had also duly corroborated the statement of PW9 Hardev
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 8
Singh.
Post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased
Jaswant Singh was conducted on 21.10.1998 by Dr.G.S. Randhawa,PW8
and he found 8 injuries on the person of deceased which were on the
head/face of the deceased. The said injuries were found to be ante mortem.
The probable time between the death and post mortem was bout 35 hours.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that the time of death could vary from
2 to 3 hours on either side. This corroborates the statement of PW4 Balbir
Singh who had last seen the accused coming out from the house of the
deceased at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m.
Thus, from the above mentioned facts, it is evident that the
circumstances proved on record against the accused are that he was last
seen coming out of the house of the deceased armed with a `kulhari’. As per
PW4 Balbir Singh, deceased -Jaswant Singh was living all alone in his
house whereas accused was living in his separate house with his mother and
brother which was situated at some distance from the house of Jaswant
Singh. Thereafter, the accused suffered an extra judicial confession before
PW1 Baldev Singh on 22.10.1999 with regard to commission of offence. It
was a Diwali night. The accused taking benefit of said fact, committed
murder of his grand father. At the time of arrest of accused, revolver
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 9
belonging to the deceased was recovered from him. PW10 Sham Sunder has
proved licence of the said revolver which was in the name of the deceased.
Accused could not show any licence for keeping the revolver in his
possession. `Kulhari’ used at the time of occurrence was also recovered
from the disclosed place in terms of the disclosure statement suffered by the
accused. An independent person was joined at the time of recovery. There
is nothing on the record to suggest that investigation in the present case had
not been conducted in a fair manner. Complainant had raised suspicion on
three persons but after due inquiry, challan was presented only against the
accused. His brother and mother were not challaned in this case.
All these circumstances are conclusive in nature and lead to the
conclusion that accused is guilty of the offence. Accused has also failed to
offer any explanation when examined under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The prosecution has,thus, been successful, in proving
its case against the accused under Section 302 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act.
However, the conviction of the accused under Section 404 IPC is liable to
be set aside as in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that he had
dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the revolver which
belonged to his grand father. Accused was ,however, guilty of keeping in
possession a revolver without a licence.
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 10
Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the accused is
maintained under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and he is
acquitted of charge framed against him under Section 404 IPC.
Consequently, appeals are dismissed/disposed of in the above terms.
Criminal Appeal No, 1049-SB of 2003
This appeal is an off shoot of the judgment vide which the case
of the accused-Iqbal Singh was decided in FIR No. 123 dated 24.10.1998
registered at Police Station Sahnewal under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Bahadur Singh Gill has filed this appeal aggrieved by the decision of the
trial Court whereby .32 bore revolver recovered from accused-Iqbal Singh
was ordered to be confiscated to the State.
This Court vide order dated 19.9.2005 passed in Crl.Misc.
30106 of 2005 held as under:-
“On October 24,1998 Iqbal Singh grand son of Jaswant Singh
was arrested for the murder of his grand father and on his
personal search a loaded German made .32 bore revolver
bearing No.1291816 along with six live cartridges were
recovered from his possession.
Since the revolver belonged to the deceased
grand father, Iqbal Singh was tried for murder as well as
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 11for illegal possession of fire arm. Iqbal Singh was
convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of
Jaswant Singh and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appeal against conviction is pending. Like wise Iqbal
Singh’s appeal for his conviction under Section 25 of the
Arms Act is also pending.
When the judgment was pronounced in the Arms
Act case on September 13,2005, learned Additional
Sessions Judge ordered that case property be confiscated
to the State. Thus, the revolver of the deceased now
stands confiscated to the State.
The order of confiscation has been challenged by
Bahadur Singh Gill, a son of deceased, on his own behalf
and on behalf of other heirs of the deceased, namely
Kartar Kaur (widow), Saudagar Singh Gill and Davinder
Singh Gill(sons) Jasvir Kaur and Balbir Kaur (daughters)
and Parminder Singh (deceased son of Jaswant Singh and
father Iqbal Sigh). The said Parminder Singh
predeceased his father.
Iqabal Singh stands disqualified to inherit the fire
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 12arm but there is no disqualification as far as the other
heirs of the deceased are concerned. Let fire arm and
seven cartridges be released to the heirs of the deceased
but physical possession of the fire arm shall be given to
Bahadur Singh Gill applicant after he obtains no objction
from the other heirs of the deceased and furnishes a valid
licence for possessing the same.
The fire arm shall not be disposed of by the
concerned heir and it shall be released to him on
furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar of
this Court undertaking to produce the fire arm as and
when required.”
The said order is confirmed and accordingly, Criminal Appeal
No.1049-SB of 2003 is allowed.
( Sabina )
Judge
(K.S.Garewal)
Judge
August 07,2008
arya
Criminal Appeal No.100-DB of 2001 13