Billu Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1983
Petitioner: Billu Singh and Anr.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1983
Judges: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY & YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 13, 1994
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 34 and 302 Indian Penal Code – Murder – Witnesses consistently deposed about the presence and participation of two appellants in occurrence – Conviction upheld.
Held:
There was no force in the submission about two different versions of witnesses from the state of F.I.R. onwards upto the state of trial. These witnesses have consistently deposited about the presence and participation of these two appellants in the occurrence. The Medical Evidence also corroborated the same. We fail to see how the non mentioning of the names of some other accused can be a ground to reject the evidence of the other witnesses at least to the extent of presence and participation of these two appellants in the attack on the deceased. (Para 5)
We see no ground to come to a different conclusion from the judgments of the courts below so far as the case against these appellants is concerned. The appeal is dismissed. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:
1. Billu Singh, original accused No. 1 and Gurbhagat Singh, original accused No. 2 are the appellants in this appeal. They alongwith seven others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted four of them and convicted the rest including the two appellants. They preferred an appeal and the High Court convicted the two appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and acquitted the remaining three accused. Hence the present appeal.
2. The accused, the material witnesses namely P.Ws 4, 10, 11 and 13 and the deceased Mohinder Singh belong to the village Khiali Chehlanwali. There was some previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. On 17.3.1980 the deceased alongwith his wife PW 4 had gone to village Jhunir to attend a fair and were returning at about 5 P.M. to their village. The deceased was also carrying his licensed gun with him. When they reached the school building at village Jhunir after ascending the bridge over the canal the accused variously armed confronted them. Among them Billu Singh – the appellant was armed with a Kulhari and the other appellant Gurbhagat Singh was armed with a Gandasa. The accused raised a lalkara and told the deceased that he can not escape. The two appellants rushed forward and caught hold of the deceased in their grip. Thereupon two of the acquitted accused dealt blows with Gandasa and Takwa. The deceased fell down on the ground. One of the acquitted accused Balbir Singh picked up the gun of the deceased. At that stage the first appellant gave two Kulhari blows on the ribs of the deceased and the other appellant Gurbhagat Singh gave two Gandasa blows with the reverse side to the deceased. He was again beaten up and the gun of the deceased also was broken. PW 4 raised alarm and on hearing the same P.Ws 10 and 11 who had been witnessing the occurrence from a short distance rushed to the spot. On seeing them the accused ran away.
3. P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 carried the deceased to the Civil Hospital, Mansa in a car and got him admitted there. PW 4 returned to her village as she had to look after her children. Next day morning, she visited the hospital and in the meantime, P.W. 14, A.S.I. received the information and he went to the hospital, obtained a certificate from the doctor that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Thereafter he recorded the statement of P.W. 4 on the basis of which the first information report was lodged. The case registered under Section 307 I.P.C. at that stage. The deceased, however, died at about 9.20 A.M. on 19.3.1980 and thereafter the case was converted into one under Section 302 I.P.C. After the inquest was held, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor, P.W. 1, who conducted the post-mortem, found as many as ten injuries. Out of them injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were incised wounds and the rest were contusions and abrasions. On dissection the Doctor found there was a fracture of skull bones and he also found a fracture of ribs and laceration of lung. He opined that the death was due to these injuries and that injuries Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The plea of the accused was one of the denial.
4. P.W. 4 deposed all the facts as mentioned above. She gave an explanation as to why she can not go to the police station immediately. It was contended before the Courts below that she was falsely put up as the first informant but the same was rejected. She specifically attributed overt acts to these two appellants. Her evidence shows that immediate efforts were made to take the deceased to the hospital and that was the reason that why she did not go to the police station immediately. P.Ws 10 and 11 have supported the version put forward by P.W.4. Some discrepancies have been pointed out in their evidence but as held by the Courts below, they are of minor nature. The version given by these three witnesses finds ample collaboration from the medical evidence also. P.W. 12 was declared hostile. P.W.13, however, introduced some variations in his deposition. He stated that at about 5 P.M. on 17.3.1980 he and his companions were returning from the fair at village Jhunir, when they saw the deceased running away with his gun. He also deposed that these two appellants and one Bhola Singh were following him and that Billu Singh was armed with Kulhari and Gurbhagat Singh was armed with Kasauli. He also mentioned the presence of other accused and attributed overt acts to them. This witness, however, stated that P.W. 4 was not there. But it looks that he has deliberately given that statement or he saw the attack on the deceased after the latter ran away for a distance. Since P.W. 13 was silent about the presence of the three other accused, the High Court acquitted them and confirmed the convictions of the two appellants since all the eye-witnesses consistently deposed about their presence and participation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 on the one hand and P.W. 13 on the other have given two different versions and therefore, the entire prosecution case must be thrown out. We see no force in this submission. From the stage of F.I.R. onwards upto the stage of trial, P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 have consistently deposed about the presence and participation of these two appellants in the occurrence. The medical evidence also corroborates the same. If P.W. 13 for some reason or other did not mention the names of three other accused, that by itself is not a ground to discard the evidence of these witnesses. Likewise, if P.W. 13 has given certain details of the attack which are not exactly consistent with the versions given by P.Ws 4, 10 and 11, we fail to see as to how that can be a ground to reject the evidence of P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 atleast to the extent of presence and participation of these two appellants in the attack on the deceased. The High Court also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 13 along with the evidence of the other three eye-witnesses for convicting the two appellants. Somehow the prosecution did not treat P.W. 13 hostile along with P.W. 12. The High Court, therefore, thought that P.W. 13’s evidence could not be altogether eschewed.
6. We have gone through all the evidence as well as the judgments of both the Courts below and we see no ground to come to a different conclusion so far as the case against these two appellants, namely Billu Singh and Gurbhagat Singh, is concerned. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1. Billu Singh, original accused No. 1 and Gurbhagat Singh, original accused No. 2 are the appellants in this appeal. They alongwith seven others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted four of them and convicted the rest including the two appellants. They preferred an appeal and the High Court convicted the two appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and acquitted the remaining three accused. Hence the present appeal.
2. The accused, the material witnesses namely P.Ws 4, 10, 11 and 13 and the deceased Mohinder Singh belong to the village Khiali Chehlanwali. There was some previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. On 17.3.1980 the deceased alongwith his wife PW 4 had gone to village Jhunir to attend a fair and were returning at about 5 P.M. to their village. The deceased was also carrying his licensed gun with him. When they reached the school building at village Jhunir after ascending the bridge over the canal the accused variously armed confronted them. Among them Billu Singh – the appellant was armed with a Kulhari and the other appellant Gurbhagat Singh was armed with a Gandasa. The accused raised a lalkara and told the deceased that he can not escape. The two appellants rushed forward and caught hold of the deceased in their grip. Thereupon two of the acquitted accused dealt blows with Gandasa and Takwa. The deceased fell down on the ground. One of the acquitted accused Balbir Singh picked up the gun of the deceased. At that stage the first appellant gave two Kulhari blows on the ribs of the deceased and the other appellant Gurbhagat Singh gave two Gandasa blows with the reverse side to the deceased. He was again beaten up and the gun of the deceased also was broken. PW 4 raised alarm and on hearing the same P.Ws 10 and 11 who had been witnessing the occurrence from a short distance rushed to the spot. On seeing them the accused ran away.
3. P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 carried the deceased to the Civil Hospital, Mansa in a car and got him admitted there. PW 4 returned to her village as she had to look after her children. Next day morning, she visited the hospital and in the meantime, P.W. 14, A.S.I. received the information and he went to the hospital, obtained a certificate from the doctor that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Thereafter he recorded the statement of P.W. 4 on the basis of which the first information report was lodged. The case registered under Section 307 I.P.C. at that stage. The deceased, however, died at about 9.20 A.M. on 19.3.1980 and thereafter the case was converted into one under Section 302 I.P.C. After the inquest was held, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor, P.W. 1, who conducted the post-mortem, found as many as ten injuries. Out of them injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were incised wounds and the rest were contusions and abrasions. On dissection the Doctor found there was a fracture of skull bones and he also found a fracture of ribs and laceration of lung. He opined that the death was due to these injuries and that injuries Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The plea of the accused was one of the denial.
4. P.W. 4 deposed all the facts as mentioned above. She gave an explanation as to why she can not go to the police station immediately. It was contended before the Courts below that she was falsely put up as the first informant but the same was rejected. She specifically attributed overt acts to these two appellants. Her evidence shows that immediate efforts were made to take the deceased to the hospital and that was the reason that why she did not go to the police station immediately. P.Ws 10 and 11 have supported the version put forward by P.W.4. Some discrepancies have been pointed out in their evidence but as held by the Courts below, they are of minor nature. The version given by these three witnesses finds ample collaboration from the medical evidence also. P.W. 12 was declared hostile. P.W.13, however, introduced some variations in his deposition. He stated that at about 5 P.M. on 17.3.1980 he and his companions were returning from the fair at village Jhunir, when they saw the deceased running away with his gun. He also deposed that these two appellants and one Bhola Singh were following him and that Billu Singh was armed with Kulhari and Gurbhagat Singh was armed with Kasauli. He also mentioned the presence of other accused and attributed overt acts to them. This witness, however, stated that P.W. 4 was not there. But it looks that he has deliberately given that statement or he saw the attack on the deceased after the latter ran away for a distance. Since P.W. 13 was silent about the presence of the three other accused, the High Court acquitted them and confirmed the convictions of the two appellants since all the eye-witnesses consistently deposed about their presence and participation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 on the one hand and P.W. 13 on the other have given two different versions and therefore, the entire prosecution case must be thrown out. We see no force in this submission. From the stage of F.I.R. onwards upto the stage of trial, P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 have consistently deposed about the presence and participation of these two appellants in the occurrence. The medical evidence also corroborates the same. If P.W. 13 for some reason or other did not mention the names of three other accused, that by itself is not a ground to discard the evidence of these witnesses. Likewise, if P.W. 13 has given certain details of the attack which are not exactly consistent with the versions given by P.Ws 4, 10 and 11, we fail to see as to how that can be a ground to reject the evidence of P.Ws 4, 10 and 11 atleast to the extent of presence and participation of these two appellants in the attack on the deceased. The High Court also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 13 along with the evidence of the other three eye-witnesses for convicting the two appellants. Somehow the prosecution did not treat P.W. 13 hostile along with P.W. 12. The High Court, therefore, thought that P.W. 13’s evidence could not be altogether eschewed.
6. We have gone through all the evidence as well as the judgments of both the Courts below and we see no ground to come to a different conclusion so far as the case against these two appellants, namely Billu Singh and Gurbhagat Singh, is concerned. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
