PETITIONER: SAT PAL & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1995 BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 1 1995 SCALE (6)86 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
M.K. MUKHERJEE. J.
Om Parkash @ Neelu, his two sons Satpal @ Sattu and Bir
Bhan, and Gulzar Singh were arraigned before the Sessions
Judge, Bhatinda for the murder of Janta Singh. The trial
ended in an acquittal of Sat Pal and conviction of the other
three under section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with a
sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each. While the three convicts filed appeals against their
convictions, the State of Punjab filed an appeal against the
acquittal of Sat Pal, and Bant Singh, the brother of the
deceased, filed a revision petition seeking compensation. In
disposing of the appeals and the revision petition by a
common judgment the High Court affirmed the conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial Court, reversed the acquittal
of Sat Pal by convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment
for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 302/34
I.P.C. and directed that the fine if realised shall be paid
to the heirs of Janta Singh. Hence these appeals at the
instance of the four convicts.
The prosecution case is that on December 5, 1981 at or
about 11.45 A.M. Janta Singh (the deceased) was going to his
outer house followed by his brothers Bant Singh and Mukhtiar
Singh to guard their cattle. When they had almost reached
Bahamanwali Gali (lane) in their village the four appellants
suddenly emerged from that qali armed with different
weapons. Om Parkash had a dang, Sat Pal a kulhari and Bir
Bhan and Gulzar Singh had a gandasa each. Om Parkash raised
a lalkara exhorting his companions that Janta Singh should
not be allowed to escape. Immediately thereupon Bir Bhan and
Gulzar Singh gave successive gandasa blows on the head of
Janta Singh as a result of which he fell down. While he was
lying on the ground both Sat Pal and Om Parkash gave blows
on his neck with their respective weapons. On alarms being
raised by Bant Singh and Mukhtiar Singh they fled away from
the spot along with their respective weapons. Janta Singh
had in the meantime died at the spot. The motive ascribed
for the murderous assault was that a few days prior to the
incident Om Parkash had been arrested for having been found
in possession of opium and intoxicating drugs and he
suspected that it was Janta Singh who had given information
to the police.
It is the further prosecution case that Bant Singh then
went and informed Zoravar Singh and Jang Singh, the Sarpanch
and Chowkidar of the village respectively about the
incident. On receiving the information, Jang Singh went to
guard the dead body of Janta Singh along with Mukhtiar Singh
while Bant Singh accompanied by Zoravar Singh went to
Budhlada Police Station to lodge an information. ASI Gurmit
Singh recorded the statement of Bant Singh and registered a
case. After making arraignment to send a special report to
the local Judicial Magistrate, ASI Gurmit Singh went to the
spot accompanied by Bant Singh and Zoravar Singh. He held
inquest upon the dead body of Janta Singh and forwarded it
for post-mortem examination. He prepared a rough site plan,
seized some blood stained earth from near the spot and
recorded the statements of Zoravar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and
Jang Singh. In course of investigation he arrested the
appellants and pursuant to their statements discovered some
lathis, kulharis and gandasas. On completion of
investigation he submitted a charge-sheet against the four
appellants.
The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges
levelled against them and tendered written statements in
support of their claim that they had been falsely
implicated.
Though the prosecution examined as many as eleven
witnesses including Zoravar Singh (PW 7) and ASI Gurmit
Singh (PW 11) to prove its case its success depended
primarily upon the acceptance of the ocular version of the
incident as given out by Bant Singh (P.W. 2) and Mukhtiar
Singh (P.W. 6) and of Dr. A.K. Garg (P.W. 1), who held post
mortem examination on the dead body of Janta Singh and found
the following injures on his person:
1. Incised wound 2″ x 0.3″ on the head
just right to the mid line, 6″ above
occipital protuberance, placed vertically.
2. One incised wound 1″ x 1/3″ present on
head, 2. 1/2″ to the left of injury No.1.
3. Abrasion 1/2″ x 1/2″ on the medial side of
right elbow.
4. One abrasion 1″ x 1/2″ behind left elbow.
5. Abrasion 1/2″ x 1/2″ on the other side of
left elbow.
6. Abrasion 1/2″ x 1/2″ on the poster medial
side of left elbow.
7. One bluish bruise 4″ x 1″ on the right
side of chest 3″ from midline, against 2nd,
3rd and 4th ribs.
8. One bruise of bluish colour 6″ x 3.1/2″
against left clavicle 2nd & 3rd ribs in the
shape like.
9. One bruise 4.1/2″ x 1/4″ was transfersely
placed on the neck between lower jaw and
thyroid protuberance.
10. One bruise 4″ x 1/4″ on the neck
obliquelly to right side against thyroid
cartilage.
11. One bruise 1/2′ x 1/4″ on the right side
of the neck.”
The trial Court found that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and
6 could be safely relied upon to sustain the charges
levelled against the appellants Om Parkash, Bir Bhan and
Gulzar Singh, more so, as it was corroborated by the first
information report which was promptly lodge by P.W. 2 and
the injuries found by P.W. 1 on the person of the deceased.
In acquitting the other appellant, namely, Sat Pal the trial
Court recorded the following finding:
“After Janta Singh had fallen on the ground,
Sat Pal accused gave two kulhari blows, one
on the neck and the other on the left side of
the chest of the deceased. The medical
evidence on the record shows that injuries on
the neck and on the chest are not incised
injuries. Faced with this situation the two
eye-witnesses in the instant the changed
their stance and instant case changed their
stance and tried to explain said injuries
that the first kulhari blow, was given from
upard-downward while holding the handle of
the kulhari and the second blow was given
from flat portion of the blade of the
kulhari. This aspect of the case is
conspicuous by its absence from the earliest
version given by the two eye-witnesses before
the police, before the post mortem had been
conducted. In these circumstances, it will
not be safe to place imllicit reliance on the
testimony of Bant Singh Mukhtiar Singh P.Ws.
as far as the infliction of the aforesaid two
injuries attributed to Sat Pal accused, is
concerned.”
The High Court concurred with all the findings recorded
by the trial Court for convicting the three appellants and
in reversing the acquittal of Sat Pal the High Court had
this to say:
“So far as Sat Pal is concerned, according
to the prosecution when Janta Singh had
fallen on the ground Sat Pal gave two kulhari
blows, one on the neck and the other on the
left side of the chest of the deceased.
According to the medical evidence, the
injuries on the nect and in the chest are not
incised injuries and the prosecution
witnesses have explained this that the first
kulhari blow was give from upward-downward
while holding the hendle of the kulhari and
the second blow was given from flat portion
of the blade of the kulhari. although this
aspect of the case is not in the earliest
version, but the minutest photographic
details cannot be expected to be given by the
eye-witnesses. The learned trial court
acquitted Sat Pal respondent on this ground
that these injuries were not explained at
the earliest were not explained at the
earliest version and go counter to the
medical evidence. In all 11 injuries were
caused and out of them for were abrasions on
the elbows. It may be that the said abrasions
were caused as a result of fall and not due
to direct blows. the appellants and Sat Pal
respondent inflicted blows in quick
succession and it was not possible for the
eye-witnesses to give an exact account, as
observed earlier. Thus, we are of the view
that the acquittal of Sat Pal was not
justified by the learned trial Court on this
ground.”
Mr. Sushil Kumar the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants took us through the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses to contend that the High Court was not a all
justified in setting aside the order of acquittal or Sat Pal
as the findings recorded by the trial Court for his
acquittal could not be said to be perverse.
Having considered the impugned judgments in the light
of the evidence on record we are in complete agreement with
the High Court that the trial Court was not at all justified
in recording the acquittal of Sat Pal on the basis of the
findings quoted earlier. In the F.I.R. that was lodged by
Bant Singh within two hours of the incident he categorically
sated that while Janta Singh was lying on the ground Sat Pal
gave axe blows on his neck as also on the left side of his
chest. In course of the trial also Bant Singh stuck to his
above version and gave further details regarding the mode of
user of the axe. It was not expected of Bant Singh nor was
it necessary to give minute details in the F.I.R.. The
finding of the trial Court as earlier quoted, for brushing
aside the evidence of P.W. 2 as against Sat Pal must
therefore be held to be perverse. For the self same reason
the finding of the trial Court for discarding the evidence
of P.W. 6, in view of his omission to detail the manner of
user of the axe by Sat Pal in his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr. P.C. cannot be sustained for it was not a
material omission amounting to contradiction. Having
carefully gone through the evidence of Bant Singh (P.W. 2)
and Mukhtiar Singh (P.W. 6) we are satisfied that their
evidence as against Sat Pal is also cogent and consistent
and the High Court was fully justified in relying upon the
same. So far as the other three appellants are concerned
both the learned courts below, who were entrusted with the
duty of investigating into questions of fact have, on a
proper discussion and appraisal of the evidence, recorded
their findings against them and sitting in this jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India we do not
find any reason to interfere with the same.
It was sought to be argued on behalf of the appellants
that the learned Courts below failed to notice that the
prosecution signally failed to prove the motive ascribed for
the alleged murder, thereby making its case suspect. Since
both the learned Courts below found the evidence of the eye
witnesses regarding the actual murder acceptable, the motive
and for that matter proof therefor, paled into
insignificance..
On the conclusions as above we dismiss the appeal and
direct the appellants, who are on bail, to their respective
bail bonds to serve out the sentence.
