Gurjant Singh Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2002
Petitioner: Gurjant Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2002
Judges: DORAISWAMY RAJU & H.K. SEMA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 09, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 3, 27 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 447 read with section 149 – Appreciation of evidence – Accused party armed with deadly weapons like gandasas, spears etc., coming to field of deceased – Upon exhortation by accused party complainant party attacked – One person given fatal blow and dying – Others injured becoming informant – Trial court acquitting 3 out of 5 on the ground that weapon of offence was not recovered – Whether non recovery by itself a valid ground to disbelieve direct and reliable evidence – Same PW however being relied upon for deciding the motive and presence of convicted accused – Whether reversal of acquittal by High Court valid and sustainable. Held, having comprehensively appreciated the evidence High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the three accused and convicting them and hence no interferences called for.
Held:
Grievance expressed by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned judges of the High Court have not specifically met the grounds on which the learned trial judge choose to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Proceeding to act on the very findings of the learned trial judge, noticed earlier about the reliability of evidence tendered by PW-3 as also the motive, found to have been substantiated, the learned judges pointed out that after the occurrence, the appellant evaded the police till 05th November, 1990 and the possibility of the appellant doing away with the gandasa during those period of 20 days noticed by them, could not be too lightly ignored or ruled out. The division bench also noticed the indisputable fact on record that the name of the appellant was specifically mentioned in the FIR and he was shown to have been armed with a gandasa and also alleged to have given two blows to the deceased Kaka Singh on his head. These facts, have been found substantiated by PW-3. It is well settled that from the mere non-recovery of the weapon alone, the case against the accused concerned cannot be held to be not substantiated when there is otherwise positive, convincing and credible ocular evidence to prove the presence of the said accused and his participation in the crime, as in this case corroborated also by medical evidence so far as the appellant is concerned. Equally, it is well settled that merely because the investigating authority came to some initial conclusion about the involvement or innocence of the person alone, any benefit can be claimed either way and that the guilt or otherwise of an accused stood charged with an offence, has to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the evidence actually brought on record and the opinion or otherwise of the investigating authority, recorded or arrived at some point of time, is no relevant or legally acceptable material, to decide the issue one way or the other. (Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Accused no. 5, who stood charged along with four others under sections 148/447 /302/307/323/149 IPC before the learned additional sessions judge, Bhatinda in S.C no. 82 of 14.10.91 RT 9 of 30.10.92 and was acquitted by the trial court, but, on an appeal by the state, convicted by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in criminal appeal no. 56- DBA of 1996, is the appellant before us.
2. The case of the prosecution , as disclosed from the evidence led in is that : PW-3, along with his wife, his brother Kaka Singh , the deceased and his wife accompanied by a labourer had gone for picking cotton in their lands and as they were in the process of doing so, Gurjant Singh , ( the appellant herein), and Atma Singh armed with ‘gandasas’, Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with ‘spears’, Geja Singh and three more persons armed with ‘dangs’ arrived on the spot and Atma Singh raised a lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson for buying their land and he gave gandasa blow to Kaka Singh on the left side of his head. The appellant was said to have given two gandasa blows on the head. Gurbax Singh was said to have given a spear blow on the left flank of Kaka Singh . Bachint Singh gave a spear blow to PW-3 and a second blow in the portion above the navel and PW-3 fell down. Geja Singh was said to have given a dang blow on his head and left arm. The three persons who accompanied them, were also said to have given dang blows and on raising an alarm by the labourer Chand Ram and the two ladies, the accused persons fled away with their weapons. Soon after the occurrence , the injured were said to have been taken to the primary health centre, Goniana and on the way Kaka Singh died . At the suggestion of the doctor , PW-3 Nachhattar Singh was said to have been taken to and got admitted in the civil hospital at Bhatinda and PW-5 recorded the statement of PW-3 in the hospital . On the basis of the statement recorded in the hospital at about 2.30 p.m ., the F.I.R. was said to have been recorded at police station Nehianwala at 3.15 p.m. and there upon PW-5 under took investigation.
3. Atma Singh and Bachint Singh were said to have been arrested on 28.10.1990. In the course of investigation, Atma Singh was said to have made a statement pursuant to which ‘gandasa’ , exhibit P-5 was recovered . Bachint Singh was said to have made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which the ‘spear’ used, exhibit P-6 was recovered. A few days later, on 5.11.1990, the appellant and Geja Singh were arrested and while steps were being taken to declare Gurbax Singh as a proclaimed offender, he surrendered on February 4, 1991. On the basis of materials gathered during the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed, as indicated above against the accused in respect of the occurrence which was said to have taken place on 15.10.1990 at about 9.30 a.m. in the fields of Chatin Singh in village Khialiwala. The learned trial judge, on a consideration of the materials placed on record did come to a positive conclusion that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3 and his testimony rather inspires confidence. Taken together, the medical evidence tendered by PWs. 1 and 2 and the recovery of the gandasa, exhibit P-5 and spear, exhibit P-6 were also found to lend corroboration to the statement about the occurrence which resulted in the death of Kaka Singh. The learned trial judge, at the same time, in our view, not justifiably declined to undertake a discussion about the common intention. So far as the motive part of it is concerned, the learned trial judge also found that it was proved on record that the land dispute existed between the parties and previous enmity was also proved on account of the murder of the brother of one of the accused i.e. Gurjant Singh by PW-3 etc., and that it is normally seen that rustic villagers for the sake of land particularly with regard to the possession of land often commit such type of crimes and that a strong motive has been proved by crystal clear evidence. Despite coming to such a conclusion, the learned trial judge seems to have been swayed by the fact that no weapon was recovered from the appellant, that the complainant party had a grouse to involve the appellant for his having been a witness in the criminal case involving the murder of his brother Teja Singh previously and that the investigating officer initially felt that there was no case made out against him, to entertain a doubt about his actual involvement and extend to him the benefit of doubt by acquitting the appellant of the charge against him. The learned trial judge, thus, by his judgment dated 17.04.1995 acquitted A-3 Gurbax Singh, A-4 Geja Singh and A-5 Gurjant Singh, the appellant. So far as A-2 Bachint Singh is concerned, he was convicted for an offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. So far as A-1 Atma Singh is concerned, he was found guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. Aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 filed appeals and the state of Punjab also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of A-3 to A-5. The learned judges of the division bench of the High Court, after elaborately discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the acquittal of A-3 to A-5 for the offences for which they were charged, could not be sustained and they were equally guilty of the offences punishable under sections 148/447/302/307/323 and 149 IPC along with the other two convicted. The appeal filed by the two accused before the High Court did not met with success and while maintaining the conviction and sentence of A-1, the remaining four, including the appellant herein, as noticed above, were found guilty of the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, in addition to the imposition of fine. The accused were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years for the other offences punishable under sections 447/307/323 read with section 149 IPC. As against the above, the appellant alone has come up before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the High Court committed an error in not specifically adverting to the reasons given by the learned trial judge for the acquittal of the appellant and that the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court independently as if it were the first court ignoring the conclusions of the learned trial judge to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, was not correct in law and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court in so far as the appellant is concerned, is liable to be set a side and that of the learned trial judge restored. The learned counsel invited our attention to some portions of the judgment of both the courts below and laid emphasis on the fact that no weapon was recovered from the appellant, that the site of occurrence has been changed and the dispute relating to the land being one with the other accused, particularly Atma Singh and his party, there was no immediate provocation for the appellant to get involved in the said dispute and the appellant was only falsely implicated by the complaining party to harass him for having deposed against the complaining party in an earlier criminal case. The motive sought attributed with reference to the murder of the brother of the appellant seven years ago to justify any grouse, enmity or involvement of the appellant in the occurrence is a far-fetched one, there was no tangible material on record to prove that the appellant was ever at the site of occurrence and, therefore, it is said that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the acquittal of the appellant. Repeatedly, reference has also been made about the initial investigating authority exonerating the appellant from the involvement in the occurrence.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-state, while inviting our attention to the findings recorded by the division bench ,as also relying upon the conclusions as to the motive and the reliability of the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 supported by the medical evidence, with equal force, contended that no case has been made out to interfere with the well merited findings of guilt recorded by the High Court for sufficient reasons based on the indisputable material available on record.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side.
8. As noticed earlier, the learned trial judge seems to have entertained a doubt with reference to the case against the appellant, particularly, on the basis of the non-recovery of the weapon said to have been used by him to inflict blows on the deceased as well as the opinion formed by the investigating authority at the completion of the investigation and also about the grievance which could possibly have been entertained by the complaining party against the appellant for having deposed against them in the earlier criminal case. We are unable to agree with the grievance expressed by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned judges of the High Court have not specifically met the grounds on which the learned trial judge choose to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Proceeding to act on the very findings of the learned trial judge, noticed earlier about the reliability of evidence tendered by PW-3 as also the motive, found to have been substantiated, the learned judges pointed out that after the occurrence, the appellant evaded the police till 05th November, 1990 and the possibility of the appellant doing away with the gandasa during those period of 20 days noticed by them, could not be too lightly ignored or ruled out. The division bench also noticed the indisputable fact on record that the name of the appellant was specifically mentioned in the FIR and he was shown to have been armed with a gandasa and also alleged to have given two blows to the deceased Kaka Singh on his head. These facts, which have been found substantiated by PW-3 also in his evidence stood corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. As for the other reasons which weighed with the learned trial judge, the division bench of the High Court specifically noticed the fact that in the earlier criminal case, the person murdered was no other than the brother of the appellant and that it could not be easily stated that due to the passage of time, the scar of death could have completely disappeared from the mind of the appellant. Adverting to the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant before the High Court based on finding of innocence of the appellant by the investigating authority, the division bench observed that in the teeth of the specific and direct evidence available on record about the presence of the appellant, as spoken to by PW 3, whole presence was considered to be an indisputable fact, the same was considered to be not either relevant or sufficient enough to create any doubt about the presence of the appellant or his participation in the occurrence. It is well settled that from the mere non-recovery of the weapon alone, the case against the accused concerned cannot be held to be not substantiated when there is otherwise positive, convincing and credible ocular evidence to prove the presence of the said accused and his participation in the crime, as in this case corroborated also by medical evidence so far as the appellant is concerned. Equally, it is well settled that merely because the investigating authority came to some initial conclusion about the involvement or innocence of the person alone, any benefit can be claimed either way and that the guilt or otherwise of an accused stood charged with an offence, has to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the evidence actually brought on record and the opinion or otherwise of the investigating authority, recorded or arrived at some point of time, is no relevant or legally acceptable material, to decide the issue one way or the other.
9. This Court normally does not substitute its views to those of the High Court recorded by way of reversal or concurrence in the absence of any special circumstances such as perversity of findings, erroneous application of law, lack of complete and comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence or that the decision of the court(s) below resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. On going through the materials on record and the judgment under challenge, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take any view different from the one taken by the High Court.
10. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that no infirmity whatsoever could be substantiated in the judgment of the High Court to warrant our interference with the conviction of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed.
1. Accused no. 5, who stood charged along with four others under sections 148/447 /302/307/323/149 IPC before the learned additional sessions judge, Bhatinda in S.C no. 82 of 14.10.91 RT 9 of 30.10.92 and was acquitted by the trial court, but, on an appeal by the state, convicted by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in criminal appeal no. 56- DBA of 1996, is the appellant before us.
2. The case of the prosecution , as disclosed from the evidence led in is that : PW-3, along with his wife, his brother Kaka Singh , the deceased and his wife accompanied by a labourer had gone for picking cotton in their lands and as they were in the process of doing so, Gurjant Singh , ( the appellant herein), and Atma Singh armed with ‘gandasas’, Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with ‘spears’, Geja Singh and three more persons armed with ‘dangs’ arrived on the spot and Atma Singh raised a lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson for buying their land and he gave gandasa blow to Kaka Singh on the left side of his head. The appellant was said to have given two gandasa blows on the head. Gurbax Singh was said to have given a spear blow on the left flank of Kaka Singh . Bachint Singh gave a spear blow to PW-3 and a second blow in the portion above the navel and PW-3 fell down. Geja Singh was said to have given a dang blow on his head and left arm. The three persons who accompanied them, were also said to have given dang blows and on raising an alarm by the labourer Chand Ram and the two ladies, the accused persons fled away with their weapons. Soon after the occurrence , the injured were said to have been taken to the primary health centre, Goniana and on the way Kaka Singh died . At the suggestion of the doctor , PW-3 Nachhattar Singh was said to have been taken to and got admitted in the civil hospital at Bhatinda and PW-5 recorded the statement of PW-3 in the hospital . On the basis of the statement recorded in the hospital at about 2.30 p.m ., the F.I.R. was said to have been recorded at police station Nehianwala at 3.15 p.m. and there upon PW-5 under took investigation.
3. Atma Singh and Bachint Singh were said to have been arrested on 28.10.1990. In the course of investigation, Atma Singh was said to have made a statement pursuant to which ‘gandasa’ , exhibit P-5 was recovered . Bachint Singh was said to have made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which the ‘spear’ used, exhibit P-6 was recovered. A few days later, on 5.11.1990, the appellant and Geja Singh were arrested and while steps were being taken to declare Gurbax Singh as a proclaimed offender, he surrendered on February 4, 1991. On the basis of materials gathered during the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed, as indicated above against the accused in respect of the occurrence which was said to have taken place on 15.10.1990 at about 9.30 a.m. in the fields of Chatin Singh in village Khialiwala. The learned trial judge, on a consideration of the materials placed on record did come to a positive conclusion that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3 and his testimony rather inspires confidence. Taken together, the medical evidence tendered by PWs. 1 and 2 and the recovery of the gandasa, exhibit P-5 and spear, exhibit P-6 were also found to lend corroboration to the statement about the occurrence which resulted in the death of Kaka Singh. The learned trial judge, at the same time, in our view, not justifiably declined to undertake a discussion about the common intention. So far as the motive part of it is concerned, the learned trial judge also found that it was proved on record that the land dispute existed between the parties and previous enmity was also proved on account of the murder of the brother of one of the accused i.e. Gurjant Singh by PW-3 etc., and that it is normally seen that rustic villagers for the sake of land particularly with regard to the possession of land often commit such type of crimes and that a strong motive has been proved by crystal clear evidence. Despite coming to such a conclusion, the learned trial judge seems to have been swayed by the fact that no weapon was recovered from the appellant, that the complainant party had a grouse to involve the appellant for his having been a witness in the criminal case involving the murder of his brother Teja Singh previously and that the investigating officer initially felt that there was no case made out against him, to entertain a doubt about his actual involvement and extend to him the benefit of doubt by acquitting the appellant of the charge against him. The learned trial judge, thus, by his judgment dated 17.04.1995 acquitted A-3 Gurbax Singh, A-4 Geja Singh and A-5 Gurjant Singh, the appellant. So far as A-2 Bachint Singh is concerned, he was convicted for an offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. So far as A-1 Atma Singh is concerned, he was found guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. Aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 filed appeals and the state of Punjab also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of A-3 to A-5. The learned judges of the division bench of the High Court, after elaborately discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the acquittal of A-3 to A-5 for the offences for which they were charged, could not be sustained and they were equally guilty of the offences punishable under sections 148/447/302/307/323 and 149 IPC along with the other two convicted. The appeal filed by the two accused before the High Court did not met with success and while maintaining the conviction and sentence of A-1, the remaining four, including the appellant herein, as noticed above, were found guilty of the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, in addition to the imposition of fine. The accused were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years for the other offences punishable under sections 447/307/323 read with section 149 IPC. As against the above, the appellant alone has come up before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the High Court committed an error in not specifically adverting to the reasons given by the learned trial judge for the acquittal of the appellant and that the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court independently as if it were the first court ignoring the conclusions of the learned trial judge to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, was not correct in law and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court in so far as the appellant is concerned, is liable to be set a side and that of the learned trial judge restored. The learned counsel invited our attention to some portions of the judgment of both the courts below and laid emphasis on the fact that no weapon was recovered from the appellant, that the site of occurrence has been changed and the dispute relating to the land being one with the other accused, particularly Atma Singh and his party, there was no immediate provocation for the appellant to get involved in the said dispute and the appellant was only falsely implicated by the complaining party to harass him for having deposed against the complaining party in an earlier criminal case. The motive sought attributed with reference to the murder of the brother of the appellant seven years ago to justify any grouse, enmity or involvement of the appellant in the occurrence is a far-fetched one, there was no tangible material on record to prove that the appellant was ever at the site of occurrence and, therefore, it is said that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the acquittal of the appellant. Repeatedly, reference has also been made about the initial investigating authority exonerating the appellant from the involvement in the occurrence.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-state, while inviting our attention to the findings recorded by the division bench ,as also relying upon the conclusions as to the motive and the reliability of the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 supported by the medical evidence, with equal force, contended that no case has been made out to interfere with the well merited findings of guilt recorded by the High Court for sufficient reasons based on the indisputable material available on record.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side.
8. As noticed earlier, the learned trial judge seems to have entertained a doubt with reference to the case against the appellant, particularly, on the basis of the non-recovery of the weapon said to have been used by him to inflict blows on the deceased as well as the opinion formed by the investigating authority at the completion of the investigation and also about the grievance which could possibly have been entertained by the complaining party against the appellant for having deposed against them in the earlier criminal case. We are unable to agree with the grievance expressed by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned judges of the High Court have not specifically met the grounds on which the learned trial judge choose to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Proceeding to act on the very findings of the learned trial judge, noticed earlier about the reliability of evidence tendered by PW-3 as also the motive, found to have been substantiated, the learned judges pointed out that after the occurrence, the appellant evaded the police till 05th November, 1990 and the possibility of the appellant doing away with the gandasa during those period of 20 days noticed by them, could not be too lightly ignored or ruled out. The division bench also noticed the indisputable fact on record that the name of the appellant was specifically mentioned in the FIR and he was shown to have been armed with a gandasa and also alleged to have given two blows to the deceased Kaka Singh on his head. These facts, which have been found substantiated by PW-3 also in his evidence stood corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. As for the other reasons which weighed with the learned trial judge, the division bench of the High Court specifically noticed the fact that in the earlier criminal case, the person murdered was no other than the brother of the appellant and that it could not be easily stated that due to the passage of time, the scar of death could have completely disappeared from the mind of the appellant. Adverting to the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant before the High Court based on finding of innocence of the appellant by the investigating authority, the division bench observed that in the teeth of the specific and direct evidence available on record about the presence of the appellant, as spoken to by PW 3, whole presence was considered to be an indisputable fact, the same was considered to be not either relevant or sufficient enough to create any doubt about the presence of the appellant or his participation in the occurrence. It is well settled that from the mere non-recovery of the weapon alone, the case against the accused concerned cannot be held to be not substantiated when there is otherwise positive, convincing and credible ocular evidence to prove the presence of the said accused and his participation in the crime, as in this case corroborated also by medical evidence so far as the appellant is concerned. Equally, it is well settled that merely because the investigating authority came to some initial conclusion about the involvement or innocence of the person alone, any benefit can be claimed either way and that the guilt or otherwise of an accused stood charged with an offence, has to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the evidence actually brought on record and the opinion or otherwise of the investigating authority, recorded or arrived at some point of time, is no relevant or legally acceptable material, to decide the issue one way or the other.
9. This Court normally does not substitute its views to those of the High Court recorded by way of reversal or concurrence in the absence of any special circumstances such as perversity of findings, erroneous application of law, lack of complete and comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence or that the decision of the court(s) below resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. On going through the materials on record and the judgment under challenge, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take any view different from the one taken by the High Court.
10. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that no infirmity whatsoever could be substantiated in the judgment of the High Court to warrant our interference with the conviction of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed.
