CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DECIDED ON- 27.10.2009
Jeet Singh @ Jeeta ......APPELLANT
Versus
State of Haryana ......RESPONDENT
Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. H. S. Jaswal, Advocate
and Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. S. S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
****
MEHTAB S.GILL, J
This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated
20.8.2001 and 21.8.2001 respectively of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Panipat vide which he convicted Jeet Singh @ Jeeta son of Amar Singh
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
Further he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.
The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PJ
of Shamsher Singh son of Ram Kumar. Shamsher Singh has stated, that his
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 2
father had passed away 6/7 years ago. He was studying in 6th class in
Government High School Bhandari. About six months earlier to the
occurrence, his maternal aunt Dhan Kaur, who was married with Ram Bhaj,
Lamberdar resided in village Bhandari. Shamsher Singh’s mother Laxmi
Devi and his aunt Dhan Kaur were on visiting terms, as they were real
sisters. Shamsher Singh’s real uncle (Chacha) Jeet Singh @ Jeeta who was
also a resident of village Bhandari, used to object to his mother Laxmi
going to the house of his sister. Shamsher Singh’s mother told Jeet Singh
that if he wanted that she should not go to his sister’s house, then he should
give him expenses to run the house.
In the intervening night of 29/30.9.1995 at about 3/4 AM, his
mother Laxmi Devi was sleeping on a cot in the varandah. Shamsher
Singh who had come after seeing the Ram Lila show, also slept with his
mother on the same cot. Early in the morning, he heard screams. His
maternal uncle Dilbagh Singh also woke up and both of them saw that Jeet
Singh was inflicting injuries with a spade on the face of Laxmi Devi, on his
mother. Thereafter Jeet Singh ran away.
On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PJ/1 was recorded
on 30.9.1995 at 6:30 PM. The Special Report reached the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat on the same day at 10:45 AM.
The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness box
Dr. S. S. Kalra PW1, Ramesh Kumar PW2, Jai Bhagwan PW3, Ajeet Singh
PW4, Suraj Mal PW5, Dilbagh Singh PW6, Shamsher Singh PW7 and
Inspector Randhir Singh PW8.
The defence also brought into the witness box Raghbir Singh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 3
DW1.
Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that Raghbir Singh
DW1, a co-villager of the deceased, has stated that on the fateful night,
there was no electricity. Nothing has come on record to show that the
electricity light was on. If there was no electricity, both the alleged eye
witnesses i.e Dilbagh Singh PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7 could not have
witnessed the occurrence.
In the Inquest Report Ex.PC, only one person has been
associated out of the six named. In the disclosure statement made by the
appellant, on the basis of which Kassi Ex. P7 was recovered, the two
witnesses to the disclosure statement i.e Ajeet Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of
District Jind and Prem also belonging to village Morali of District Jind have
been shown to be the witnesses, though their villages were not less than 20
kms away from the place of occurrence. Both the witnesses to the recovery
of Kassi Ex. P7, have not been examined.
It is strange that Shamsher Singh PW7, the son of the deceased
and Dilbagh Singh PW6, brother of the deceased, though were in the same
room, were sleeping not less than 7 feet away, did not do anything to save
Laxmi Devi. They did not try to catch hold of the appellant.
The motive for the commission of offence i.e Dhan Kaur was
not examined, nor was any independent witness examined to prove the
motive.
Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the occurrence
had taken place on 30.9.1995 at 3/4 AM and the Special Report reached the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat at 10:45 AM. There is no delay in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 4
lodging of the FIR. This itself goes a long way in proving the case of the
prosecution. The name of the appellant is given in the FIR. The weapon of
offence i.e Kassi Ex. P7 and the nature of injuries inflicted on Laxmi Devi
have also been mentioned. Infact both Dilbagh Singh PW6 and Shamsher
Singh PW7 are natural witnesses, one being the son and the other being the
real brother respectively, of the deceased.
No challenge has come from the side of the defence nor any
question has been put about Dilbagh Singh PW6, the real brother of
deceased not staying in the house of Laxmi Devi, his mother.
Appellant Jeet Singh @ Jeeta is no other person than the real
uncle (Chacha) of Shamsher Singh PW7. Both the witnesses Dilbagh Singh
PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7 had interacted with him very closely and
knew him very well. He could be easily recognized as the lights in the
street were on and Ramlila function was also going on in the neighborhood.
The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. Four
injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased have been described in FIR
Ex. PJ/1 and also by both Dilbagh Singh PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7 in
their testimony before the Court. Shamsher Singh PW7 was a young boy of
13 years, when he witnessed the gruesome murder of his mother. Defence
could not shatter his testimony when he was cross examined.
Dr. S. S Kalra PW1, has stated that injuries inflicted on the
person of the deceased could be caused with Kassi Ex. P7.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their assistance.
Occurrence had taken place on 30.9.1995 at about 3/4 AM in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 5
the morning. FIR Ex. PJ/1 came into existence on the same day at 6:30 AM
and the Special Report reached the JMIC, Panipat at 10:45 AM. The
weapon of offence i.e Kassi Ex. P7 has been mentioned. The name of the
appellant has been given in the FIR. The nature of injuries inflicted by the
appellant on the person of deceased Laxmi Devi, have also been explained
in the FIR. The promptness with which the FIR has been lodged and the
details given in the FIR go a long way in proving the case of the
prosecution.
Shamsher Singh PW7 and Dilbagh Singh PW6 are eye
witnesses. Both are natural witnesses. Shamsher Singh PW7 is the minor
son of the deceased. It was natural for him to be in the room at 3/4 AM in
the morning. Dilbagh Singh PW6 is the real brother of the deceased. No
challenge has come from the side of the defence and no question has been
put to the witnesses that Dilbagh Singh PW6 did not stay with his sister
Laxmi Devi.
Appellant is the real uncle (Chacha) of Shamsher Singh PW7.
He had a grudge against the deceased, that she used to go and meet her
sister Dhan Kaur. He was not happy and used to object to the deceased for
going and meeting her sister. On the date of occurrence, Dilbagh Singh
PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7 had come at about 12/1 AM, after seeing
Ram Lila. All the three i.e deceased and the eye witnesses were in deep
sleep, when appellant came armed with Kassi Ex. P7 and inflicted injuries
on the face of Laxmi Devi, which were fatal. Everything happened so
quickly, Dilbagh Singh PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7 did not have any
time to react.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 6
Dr. S. S. Kalra PW1, who prepared the postmortem report Ex.
PA, has stated that injuries could be caused by Kassi Ex. P7.
There are four injuries on the person of the deceased, all on the
face. All four injuries correspond and are corroborated by the statementof
Dilbagh Singh PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7. The medical evidence
corroborates the ocular account.
Learned counsel for the appellant has laid down much stress on
the statement of Raghubir Singh DW1, that on the fateful night, there was
no electricity in the village and thus both the eye witnesses Dilbagh Singh
PW6 and Shamsher Singh PW7 could not have seen the occurrence. This
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant does not cut much ice. It
has come in the evidence of both Dilbagh Singh PW6 and Shamsher Singh
PW7 that the lights outside their house were on. We cannot look over this
fact that appellant Jeet Singh is the real uncle of Shamsher Singh PW7.
Even if, it was night time, he could have easily been recognized, with very
little light as he was no stranger to the house.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that only
one witness was examined while preparing Inquest Report Ex. PC though
six persons were present, also is of no much help, as the other six persons
were bye-standers. The Investigating Officer SI Randhir Singh PW8 did not
feel that they should be associated with the investigation.
The two witnesses to the disclosure Statement, Ex. PB/1, made
on the basis of which Kassi Ex. P7 was recovered, were from village Morali
District Jind. It has come in evidence that village Morali was the village of
the mother of Shamsher Singh PW7.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570-DB OF 2001 7
With above discussions and observations, we do not find any
infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court.
Appeal is dismissed.
( MEHTAB S. GILL )
JUDGE
27.10.2009 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA)
mamta JUDGE
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO