Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sat Pal and S.S.Sudhalkar JJ.
Nirmal Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1996,
Decided On : JULY 11, 1997
The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing firearm injuries to several individuals. The Court found that the appellant had absconded after the crime and there was no immediate prospect of arresting him, thus satisfying the conditions for proceeding under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court also found that the factum of death of five witnesses was established for the purpose of Section 299 CrPC. The Court relied on the evidence of these witnesses, recorded in the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC, to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the delay in delivering the special report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was unexplained, finding that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the affidavit of the police officer who delivered the report. The Court also rejected the appellant's contention that the stengun used in the crime was not available to him, finding that the report of the Ballistic Expert clearly proved that the cartridges found at the scene of the crime had been fired from the appellant's stengun. The Court also found that the recovery of certain documents from the scene of the crime was duly proved by the prosecution. The Court held that the question of motive was not of much relevance in the case, given the strong evidence of murder. The Court, however, reduced the appellant's sentence from death to life imprisonment, considering the mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's young age at the time of the crime, the absence of a conspiracy or planning, and the fact that peace had returned to the village. The Court directed that all sentences would run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Nirmal Singh, was convicted of murder and causing firearm injuries to several individuals in a series of incidents that occurred in a village in Haryana in September 1980. The appellant absconded after the crime and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of witnesses whose statements were recorded in the proceedings under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for the recording of evidence in the absence of an accused person who has absconded. The appellant challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the validity of the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC, the delay in delivering the special report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the lack of evidence regarding the availability of the stengun used in the crime, the failure to prove the recovery of certain documents from the scene of the crime, and the absence of a motive for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing firearm injuries to several individuals. The Court found that the appellant had absconded after the crime and there was no immediate prospect of arresting him, thus satisfying the conditions for proceeding under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court also found that the factum of death of five witnesses was established for the purpose of Section 299 CrPC. The Court relied on the evidence of these witnesses, recorded in the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC, to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the delay in delivering the special report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was unexplained, finding that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the affidavit of the police officer who delivered the report. The Court also rejected the appellant's contention that the stengun used in the crime was not available to him, finding that the report of the Ballistic Expert clearly proved that the cartridges found at the scene of the crime had been fired from the appellant's stengun. The Court also found that the recovery of certain documents from the scene of the crime was duly proved by the prosecution. The Court held that the question of motive was not of much relevance in the case, given the strong evidence of murder. The Court, however, reduced the appellant's sentence from death to life imprisonment, considering the mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's young age at the time of the crime, the absence of a conspiracy or planning, and the fact that peace had returned to the village. The Court directed that all sentences would run concurrently.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were valid. 2. Whether the delay in delivering the special report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was unexplained. 3. Whether there was evidence regarding the availability of the stengun used in the crime. 4. Whether the recovery of certain documents from the scene of the crime was proved. 5. Whether there was a motive for the crime. 6. Whether the sentence of death was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC were valid, as the appellant had absconded after the crime and there was no immediate prospect of arresting him, satisfying the conditions for proceeding under Section 299 CrPC. The Court also found that the factum of death of five witnesses was established for the purpose of Section 299 CrPC, allowing the Court to rely on their evidence recorded in the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC to establish the appellant's guilt. 2. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the delay in delivering the special report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was unexplained, finding that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the affidavit of the police officer who delivered the report. 3. The Court also rejected the appellant's contention that the stengun used in the crime was not available to him, finding that the report of the Ballistic Expert clearly proved that the cartridges found at the scene of the crime had been fired from the appellant's stengun. 4. The Court also found that the recovery of certain documents from the scene of the crime was duly proved by the prosecution. 5. The Court held that the question of motive was not of much relevance in the case, given the strong evidence of murder. 6. The Court, however, reduced the appellant's sentence from death to life imprisonment, considering the mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's young age at the time of the crime, the absence of a conspiracy or planning, and the fact that peace had returned to the village. The Court directed that all sentences would run concurrently.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing firearm injuries to several individuals. The Court, however, reduced the appellant's sentence from death to life imprisonment, considering the mitigating circumstances. The Court directed that all sentences would run concurrently.
Sat Pal, J.
1. By this judgment we are disposing of Murder Reference No. 3 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 261-DB of 1996 as both arise from the same judgment, dated 30th April, 1996, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind. By this judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Under Section 302, IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The sentence of death is subject to the confirmation by this Court. Under Section 307, IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered that in default of payment of fine on any count, the appellant would further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. In this case, F.I.R. Exhibit PW 445/A under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Safidon, District Jind, on 15th September, 1980 at 8.20 P.M. on the basis of the statement of Chhotu son of Indraj. The statement of said Chhotu was recorded by SI Ram Singh (PW 44) S.H.O. P.S. Safidon. In his statement, Chhotu stated that on 15th September, 1980 at about 7.45 P.M. he along with Manphool son of Bhola and Surat Singh son of Ram Kishan was present at the flour mill of Gaje Singh son of Abhey Ram in village Budha Khera when Nirmal Singh (appellant) who was serving in the Army and his brother Vijay Singh, both sons of Rulia Ram and two other persons whom he could identify if brought before him, came in the street. Nirmal Singh fired at them with the small Army weapon which hit Surat Singh who fell down. Then he rushed towards the shop of Inder Singh and raised alarm that Surat Singh had been murdered. In the meantime, Nirmal Singh etc. came towards that side and fired at his nephew Des Raj who died on the spot. He further stated that firing was going on in the village. He also stated that about 6/7 months ago, a fight took place between Vijay Singh and Gaje Singh and due to that grudge, they had taken the revenge of it. Special report was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind through Constable Puran Singh (PW 3) on 16th September, 1980 at 3.10 A.M. It may be pointed out that distance between the place of occurrence and P.S. Safidon is 7 miles. It is further the case of the prosecution that after recording of the FIR, P.W. 44 Ram Singh along with several Police officials reached the spot for investigation. He found that four dead bodies were lying in the village, two at one place and two at another place. He prepared the inquest reports exhibits PW 44/B, PW 44/C, PW 44/D and PW 44/E, of the dead bodies of Surat Singh, Des Raj, Lehna Singh and Ramesh Chand respectively. Then he sent the dead bodies to the Civil Hospital, Jind, for post mortem through ASI Ram Charan. The dead bodies were identified by their close relatives at the spot and their names were mentioned in the inquest reports.
3. Dr. Satish Gupta (PW 3) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Surat Singh and he found the following injuries on his dead body.
(1) There was a wound of entrance 1 cm. x 1 cm in size with contused lacerated and inverted margins, present on the left side of nose 2.5 cm above the tip and 1 cm. from the midline. The wound was directed backwards and clotted blood was present.
(ii) There was a wound of exit 3 cm. x 1.5 cm size with everted and lacerated margins 2 cms. below the external occipetal protuberance transversely placed more towards the left. Clotted blood was present and underlying bone was missing.
On dissection: there was communited
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
