STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. POHLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning correctness of judgment directing acquittal of the respondents as passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal. Respondents were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Originally, there were four accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his judgment dated 29-9-1994 held that the present two respondents Phola Singh and Balkaur Singh were guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced for imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default stipulation. Other two accused i.e. Raja Singh and Roga Singh were given the benefit of doubt. While the convicted accused questioned the legality of their conviction, a revision was filed to seek conviction of the acquitted accused and enhancement of the sentence passed against the convicted accused.

(2.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : On 11-6-1991 Mandip Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) suffered homicidal death. The incident took place at about 5.30 a.m. on the aforesaid date. During the night between 10th and 11th of June, 1991 irrigation of certain lands under the cultivation of complainant Gurmail Singh (PW2) and others was being carried. During that night, deceased Mandip Singh who is the nephew of the complainant Gurmail Singh, was sleeping near the tubewell in the adjacent land belonging to Sukhdev Singh. Deceased Mandip Singh was to get up in the morning in order to undertake the agricultural work in the land which was being cultivated by Gurmail Singh (PW2) and others. Gurmail Singh (PW2), therefore, went towards the place where deceased was sleeping. Pal Singh (PW3) was then irrigating his land near the place of occurrence. When Gurmail Singh (PW2) came near the place where deceased was sleeping, he noticed that the two accused-respondents and acquitted accused Goga Singh armed with a Ghop near deceased. Accused-Phola Singh then shouted to teach lesson to deceased for having developed illicit relations with Amar Kaur who is sister of accused Phola Singh. Thereupon deceased was dealt with by these accused with their respective weapons. Deceased sustained 13 injuries. On seeing that deceased was being, thus attacked; Gurmail Singh (PW 2) and Pal Singh (PW3) raised alarm. Thereupon these assailants fled away with their respective weapons. Deceased succumbed to his injuries at the spot itself. Thereupon, Gurmail Singh (PW2) initially proceeded to the village in order to inform his brother Baldev Singh. Thereafter, he proceeded towards police station. On way, he happened to meet the police patrolling party at Jalal bus stand. His report was recorded at about 10.00 a.m. The said report was duly registered at the police station, Dialpura at 10.45 a.m. The special report regarding the registration of the said offence was sent to Magistrate, Phul who received it at 2.40 p.m. on the same date. The police arrived at the scene of occurrence and prepared the inquest report on the dead body. The dead body was duly sent for autopsy. The doctor found in all 13 injuries. The cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage on the vital organs such as brain.

(3.) Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. Their specific case as revealed in the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) was that they were falsely implicated at the instance of one Balkar Singh who is a close relative of Gurmail Singh (PW2). They claimed that accused Goga Singh was formerly a partner in the cultivation with Balkar Singh and there was a dispute between them on the issue of sharing the money. Deceased was associated with terrorists and robbers and he was in all probability murdered by rival gang and they were falsely involved on suspicion. The trial Court found that material was not sufficient to fashion guilt of two accused. But two accused were held guilty. They were in appeal before the High Court. It was submitted that there was inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police and further delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate. The incident took place at 5.30 a.m. as per Gurmail Singh (PW-2). He stated that after the incident he rushed to the village to inform his brother Baldev Singh who is the father of the deceased. The evidence does not indicate as to what steps Baldev Singh took on getting the information to set law into motion. According to Gurmail Singh (PW2), he and Baldev Singh proceeded towards the police station but on the way they happened to meet the patrolling police party at the Jalal bus stand. It was expected that Baldev Singh was to rush to the field where his son was killed, and ascertain the situation there. It is also in evidence that Gurmail Singh (PW2) owned a tractor. It was not explained why he and Baldev Singh did not try to cover the distance up to the police station by tractor. It has also been accepted that in a village there was a police post. The explanation that two policemen of the police post declined to take down report as officer in charge was outside the Ilaqa has been stated for the first time in Court. The distance between the village where the incident took place and the police station is 9 k.m. only. This distance could have been covered by using a tractor. Despite all these facilities being available, information was recorded at 10.45 a.m. It creates a strong suspicion that time was spent in deliberation.