Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.85 of 1979.
Petitioner: Surinder Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.85 of 1979.
Judges: S.NATARAJAN & KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 07, 1989
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Trial
Evidence – Murder – Time of occurrence – Medical opinion – Infirmities in the prosecution case – Convictions set aside and appellant acquitted.
Injuries and weapons used – Stab injuries and contused injuries – Two kinds of weapon used – Possibility of two persons having attacked the deceased could not be ruled out – Infirmities in the prosecution evidence – Appellant acquitted.
Time of death – Autopsy report – Semi digested food in the stomach, which according to doctor, the deceased must have taken 2/3 hours before his death – Held that the medical evidence regarding time of death and semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased cast considerable doubt about the prosecution case that the deceased was attacked at about 3 or 4 a.m.
JUDGEMENT:
NATARAJAN, J. :
1. The appellant Surinder Singh who has preferred this appeal by special leave has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and to undergo three years’ R.I. in default of payment of fine. He has also been convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months on each count, the sentences to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life.
2. The appellant has been awarded conviction for the offences mentioned above in the following circumstances. At about 9 or 10 p.m. on 8.5.75 the appellant and deceased Manjit Singh, who were both aged about 18 years had a quarrel while taking curd and while in a drunken mood near the shop of one Mohinder Pal in Kharasanwali Gali, Amritsar. PW2 Ramesh Chand and PW3 Subhash Chander intervened and pacified them and sent them away. While the appellant went away to his house Manjit Singh went to the new market and lay down on a bench. Some hours later i.e. at about 3 or 4 a.m. on 9.5.75 PW2 was awakened by the appellant and enquired as to where Manjit Singh was. PW2 took the appellant to the new market which was only about 9 or 10 yards from where PW2 was sleeping and pointed out Manjit Singh sleeping on the bench. At once the appellant caught hold of the hair of Manjit Singh and pulled him down to the ground and thereafter beat him on his head 3 or 4 times with an iron rod brought by him. Not stopping with that, the appellant took out a knife brought by him and inflicted two or three stabs on the chest of Manjit Singh. Manjit Singh died almost instantaneously on receipt of the injuries inflicted on him by the appellant. The appellant warned PW 2 that if he told anyone of what he had seen he would also be dealt with in the same manner and then left the place.
3. PW2 went back to his house and dozed off for some time and thereafter went and informed PW3 at his house as to what had happened. PW3 went to the New Market alongwith PW2 and saw the dead body of Manjit Singh lying there. He advised PW2 to inform the matter to one Jagan Nath and on PW2 informing Jagan Nath he was asked by the latter to inform one Kartar Chand, Municipal Commissioner about the occurrence and accordingly PW2 went and informed Kartar Chand. Thereafter it is said that Kartar Chand took PW2 to the Police Station and PW2 lodged the first information report.
4. On the basis of PW2’s report a case was registered against the appellant and was duly investigated. The appellant was not immediately traceable but later in the day he was apprehended near the bus stand and on being questioned he gave a statement leading to the recovery of a bloodstained knife from a place of concealment in his house.
5. Manjit Singh’ dead body was sent for autopsy and PW1 Dr. Gurdip Kumar Uppal, who conducted the autopsy found two incised injuries on the chest, another incised injury on the upper part of the left ear pinna and three contused injuries on the forehead and both sides of the head. Besides there were also abrasions. The stab injuries on the chest and the injuries on the head which had caused fracture of the left parietal bone were certified by PW1 to be injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
6. The appellant was duly charged and tried for the offence of murder. The appellant denied his complicity in the offence and stated that PW3 and the Municipal Commissioner Kartar Chand were engaged in doing Satta gambling and deceased Manjit Singh was their henchman and because he (appellant) and some others had raised objection to the satta gambling activities they have all joined together and falsely implicated him in the case.
7. The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and rejected the plea of the accused and convicted him under the respective charges framed against him and the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences.
8. Mr.R.C.Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence in the case and the judgments of the Sessions Judge and the High Court and advanced various arguments to contend that the prosecution case is full of infirmities and as such the Sessions Judge and the High Court were in error in accepting the prosecution evidence and convicting the appellant under the several charges and awarding sentences to him as set out above. Mr.R.S. Suri, learned counsel for the State refuted the contentions of Mr.R.C.Kohli and submitted that the prosecution evidence fully justified the conviction of the appellant.
9. On a consideration of the matter the we find there are several factors which cast serious doubts about the truth of the prosecution case. In the first place, though there was a quarrel between the appellant and Manjit Singh at about 9 or 10 p.m. on 8.5.75, it was only a drunken brawl and therefore it is doubtful if the appellant would have come to attack Manjit Singh some hours later to settle scores with him. If at all the appellant was aggrieved with the conduct of Manjit Singh, he would have attacked him soon after the quarrel had taken place and would not have waited till 3 or 4 a.m. to come and attack him. Independent material for this inference is furnished by the evidence of the doctor PW1 who conducted the autopsy. PW1 has estimated the time of death as 11 p.m. i.e. 16 hours before when the autopsy was conducted. The High Court has brushed aside the estimate of PW1 regarding the time of death by saying it is only an opinion evidence. Unfortunately the High Court has failed to take into consideration another relevant factor which would indicate the probable time of death. PW1 had found semi-digested food in the stomach of Manjit Singh at the time of autopsy. He has therefore, stated that Manjit Singh should have taken his last meal 2/3 hours before his death. If the prosecution case is to be accepted then it would mean that Manjit Singh must have had his last meal at about mid night which is somewhat unlikely. According to PW2 Manjit Singh and the appellant were taking curd at the shop of Mohinder Pal at about 9 or 10 p.m. and it was at that time the quarrel had taken place between them. After the quarrel was stopped by the intervention of PWs 2 and 3, Manjit Singh went to the New Market and lay down on a bench. Such being the case it is highly doubtful if Manjit Singh would have thereafter got up and gone somewhere and taken his food. The medical evidence regarding the time of death and the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of Manjit Singh throws considerable doubt about the prosecution case that Manjit Singh had been attacked at about 3 or 4 a.m.
10. Leaving aside the question of the probable time of occurrence, the nature of the injuries caused on Manjit Singh also cast doubt about the veracity of PW2’s testimony. Manjit Singh had sustained stab injuries as well as contused injuries and therefore it is obvious that he must have been attacked with a sharp edged instrument as well as a heavy blunt instrument. Infact PW2 would say that the appellant attacked Manjit Singh with a knife as well as with an iron rod. It is highly improbable that the appellant would have brought two kinds of weapons to attack Manjit Singh. Moreover the iron rod could not have been brought by him in a concealed fashion. There is also no evidence as to what happened to the iron rod after the appellant had perpetrated the attack on Manjit Singh. The prosecution has been able to recover only a knife from the appellant’s house and not the iron rod. If the appellant had thrown away the iron rod it is doubtful if he would have brought the knife alone and kept it concealed in his house. Inasmuch as two kinds of weapons have been used the possibility of two persons having attacked Manjit Singh, as contended by Mr.R.C.Kohli, cannot be ruled out.
11. Coming now to the evidence of PW2 it is not understandable why the appellant should have come and woke him up at 3 or 4 a.m. to find out where Manjit Singh was to be found. The place where Manjit Singh was sleeping was only about 9 or 10 yards from where PW2 was sleeping. The appellant could have therefore, easily found out where Manjit Singh was sleeping without waking up PW2 and making enquiries of him. Even if the appellant had required the services of PW2 to find out where Manjit Singh was sleeping, he would not have perpetrated the attack in the presence of PW2. He would have sent away PW2 before he launched the attack on Manjit Singh.
12. The conduct of PW2 after the occurrence had taken place has certainly to be viewed with suspicion. If he had been a witness to the murderous attack on Manjit Singh, it would be natural to expect him to go and inform the parents and relations of Manjit Singh of the occurrence and also the Police authorities. On the other hand what PW2 had done was to go to his house and sleep for some time and then go and inform the matter to PW3 and some others. The story of PW2 that because of the threats of the appellant he did not go and inform anyone forthwith cannot be readily accepted. If he was so frightened at that time to go and tell others about the occurrence, it is not known how he was able to get over his fears a few hours later and go and inform PW3 and others about what had happened.
13. Apart from the evidence of PW2 which, as we have pointed out is not of an inspiring nature, there only remains the recovery of a blood stained knife from the appellant’s house. It is no doubt true that human blood stains were found on the knife but it has not been shown that the blood stains on the knife were of the same group as the blood of Manjit Singh.
14. Thus we find that there are very many factors which raise doubts on the truth of the prosecution case. The prosecution case is rendered doubtful regarding the motive for the occurrence, the time and manner of the occurrence and as to whether PW2 is a truthful witness. The Sessions Judge and the High Court have not adverted to themselves these suspicious features and have accepted the prosecution case by placing unreserved acceptance on the evidence of PW2.
15. In accordance with our conclusion, we allow the appeal and set aside the convictions awarded to the appellant and acquit him of the charges framed against him. As the appellant is on bail he need not surrender to custody and his bail bond will stand discharged.
1. The appellant Surinder Singh who has preferred this appeal by special leave has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and to undergo three years’ R.I. in default of payment of fine. He has also been convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months on each count, the sentences to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life.
2. The appellant has been awarded conviction for the offences mentioned above in the following circumstances. At about 9 or 10 p.m. on 8.5.75 the appellant and deceased Manjit Singh, who were both aged about 18 years had a quarrel while taking curd and while in a drunken mood near the shop of one Mohinder Pal in Kharasanwali Gali, Amritsar. PW2 Ramesh Chand and PW3 Subhash Chander intervened and pacified them and sent them away. While the appellant went away to his house Manjit Singh went to the new market and lay down on a bench. Some hours later i.e. at about 3 or 4 a.m. on 9.5.75 PW2 was awakened by the appellant and enquired as to where Manjit Singh was. PW2 took the appellant to the new market which was only about 9 or 10 yards from where PW2 was sleeping and pointed out Manjit Singh sleeping on the bench. At once the appellant caught hold of the hair of Manjit Singh and pulled him down to the ground and thereafter beat him on his head 3 or 4 times with an iron rod brought by him. Not stopping with that, the appellant took out a knife brought by him and inflicted two or three stabs on the chest of Manjit Singh. Manjit Singh died almost instantaneously on receipt of the injuries inflicted on him by the appellant. The appellant warned PW 2 that if he told anyone of what he had seen he would also be dealt with in the same manner and then left the place.
3. PW2 went back to his house and dozed off for some time and thereafter went and informed PW3 at his house as to what had happened. PW3 went to the New Market alongwith PW2 and saw the dead body of Manjit Singh lying there. He advised PW2 to inform the matter to one Jagan Nath and on PW2 informing Jagan Nath he was asked by the latter to inform one Kartar Chand, Municipal Commissioner about the occurrence and accordingly PW2 went and informed Kartar Chand. Thereafter it is said that Kartar Chand took PW2 to the Police Station and PW2 lodged the first information report.
4. On the basis of PW2’s report a case was registered against the appellant and was duly investigated. The appellant was not immediately traceable but later in the day he was apprehended near the bus stand and on being questioned he gave a statement leading to the recovery of a bloodstained knife from a place of concealment in his house.
5. Manjit Singh’ dead body was sent for autopsy and PW1 Dr. Gurdip Kumar Uppal, who conducted the autopsy found two incised injuries on the chest, another incised injury on the upper part of the left ear pinna and three contused injuries on the forehead and both sides of the head. Besides there were also abrasions. The stab injuries on the chest and the injuries on the head which had caused fracture of the left parietal bone were certified by PW1 to be injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
6. The appellant was duly charged and tried for the offence of murder. The appellant denied his complicity in the offence and stated that PW3 and the Municipal Commissioner Kartar Chand were engaged in doing Satta gambling and deceased Manjit Singh was their henchman and because he (appellant) and some others had raised objection to the satta gambling activities they have all joined together and falsely implicated him in the case.
7. The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and rejected the plea of the accused and convicted him under the respective charges framed against him and the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences.
8. Mr.R.C.Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence in the case and the judgments of the Sessions Judge and the High Court and advanced various arguments to contend that the prosecution case is full of infirmities and as such the Sessions Judge and the High Court were in error in accepting the prosecution evidence and convicting the appellant under the several charges and awarding sentences to him as set out above. Mr.R.S. Suri, learned counsel for the State refuted the contentions of Mr.R.C.Kohli and submitted that the prosecution evidence fully justified the conviction of the appellant.
9. On a consideration of the matter the we find there are several factors which cast serious doubts about the truth of the prosecution case. In the first place, though there was a quarrel between the appellant and Manjit Singh at about 9 or 10 p.m. on 8.5.75, it was only a drunken brawl and therefore it is doubtful if the appellant would have come to attack Manjit Singh some hours later to settle scores with him. If at all the appellant was aggrieved with the conduct of Manjit Singh, he would have attacked him soon after the quarrel had taken place and would not have waited till 3 or 4 a.m. to come and attack him. Independent material for this inference is furnished by the evidence of the doctor PW1 who conducted the autopsy. PW1 has estimated the time of death as 11 p.m. i.e. 16 hours before when the autopsy was conducted. The High Court has brushed aside the estimate of PW1 regarding the time of death by saying it is only an opinion evidence. Unfortunately the High Court has failed to take into consideration another relevant factor which would indicate the probable time of death. PW1 had found semi-digested food in the stomach of Manjit Singh at the time of autopsy. He has therefore, stated that Manjit Singh should have taken his last meal 2/3 hours before his death. If the prosecution case is to be accepted then it would mean that Manjit Singh must have had his last meal at about mid night which is somewhat unlikely. According to PW2 Manjit Singh and the appellant were taking curd at the shop of Mohinder Pal at about 9 or 10 p.m. and it was at that time the quarrel had taken place between them. After the quarrel was stopped by the intervention of PWs 2 and 3, Manjit Singh went to the New Market and lay down on a bench. Such being the case it is highly doubtful if Manjit Singh would have thereafter got up and gone somewhere and taken his food. The medical evidence regarding the time of death and the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of Manjit Singh throws considerable doubt about the prosecution case that Manjit Singh had been attacked at about 3 or 4 a.m.
10. Leaving aside the question of the probable time of occurrence, the nature of the injuries caused on Manjit Singh also cast doubt about the veracity of PW2’s testimony. Manjit Singh had sustained stab injuries as well as contused injuries and therefore it is obvious that he must have been attacked with a sharp edged instrument as well as a heavy blunt instrument. Infact PW2 would say that the appellant attacked Manjit Singh with a knife as well as with an iron rod. It is highly improbable that the appellant would have brought two kinds of weapons to attack Manjit Singh. Moreover the iron rod could not have been brought by him in a concealed fashion. There is also no evidence as to what happened to the iron rod after the appellant had perpetrated the attack on Manjit Singh. The prosecution has been able to recover only a knife from the appellant’s house and not the iron rod. If the appellant had thrown away the iron rod it is doubtful if he would have brought the knife alone and kept it concealed in his house. Inasmuch as two kinds of weapons have been used the possibility of two persons having attacked Manjit Singh, as contended by Mr.R.C.Kohli, cannot be ruled out.
11. Coming now to the evidence of PW2 it is not understandable why the appellant should have come and woke him up at 3 or 4 a.m. to find out where Manjit Singh was to be found. The place where Manjit Singh was sleeping was only about 9 or 10 yards from where PW2 was sleeping. The appellant could have therefore, easily found out where Manjit Singh was sleeping without waking up PW2 and making enquiries of him. Even if the appellant had required the services of PW2 to find out where Manjit Singh was sleeping, he would not have perpetrated the attack in the presence of PW2. He would have sent away PW2 before he launched the attack on Manjit Singh.
12. The conduct of PW2 after the occurrence had taken place has certainly to be viewed with suspicion. If he had been a witness to the murderous attack on Manjit Singh, it would be natural to expect him to go and inform the parents and relations of Manjit Singh of the occurrence and also the Police authorities. On the other hand what PW2 had done was to go to his house and sleep for some time and then go and inform the matter to PW3 and some others. The story of PW2 that because of the threats of the appellant he did not go and inform anyone forthwith cannot be readily accepted. If he was so frightened at that time to go and tell others about the occurrence, it is not known how he was able to get over his fears a few hours later and go and inform PW3 and others about what had happened.
13. Apart from the evidence of PW2 which, as we have pointed out is not of an inspiring nature, there only remains the recovery of a blood stained knife from the appellant’s house. It is no doubt true that human blood stains were found on the knife but it has not been shown that the blood stains on the knife were of the same group as the blood of Manjit Singh.
14. Thus we find that there are very many factors which raise doubts on the truth of the prosecution case. The prosecution case is rendered doubtful regarding the motive for the occurrence, the time and manner of the occurrence and as to whether PW2 is a truthful witness. The Sessions Judge and the High Court have not adverted to themselves these suspicious features and have accepted the prosecution case by placing unreserved acceptance on the evidence of PW2.
15. In accordance with our conclusion, we allow the appeal and set aside the convictions awarded to the appellant and acquit him of the charges framed against him. As the appellant is on bail he need not surrender to custody and his bail bond will stand discharged.
