Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 756
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sat Pal and M.L.Singhal JJ.
Surjit Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1994,
Decided On : MAY 6, 1997
Delay in lodging FIR and delivering special report can be explained by circumstances, and the credibility of eye-witnesses is crucial in determining the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC AND SECTION 25 ARMS ACT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - CHALLENGE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR AND DELIVERING SPECIAL REPORT - EXPLANATION - CREDIBILITY OF EYE-WITNESSES - MOTIVE - NON-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - ADVERSE EFFECT - ACTION AGAINST DELINQUENT SPO/SPOS.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Surjit Singh was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act for the murder of Om Nath, a Class IV employee. The deceased was shot by the appellant with a stengun belonging to one of his gunmen. The appellant claimed innocence and alleged false implication due to enmity with ASI Pakhar Ram and the evil eye of the gunmen on the deceased's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR and delivering the special report was satisfactorily explained. The statements of the eye-witnesses, PW 1 Sinder Devi (wife of the deceased) and PW 3 Jasbir Singh (gunman of the appellant), were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The motive, though not significant, was established by the testimony of PW 1 regarding the appellant's evil eye on her. The non-examination of other witnesses was justified as one was won over by the accused and the other was not an eye-witness. The court also directed stern disciplinary action against the delinquent SPO/SPOs for parting with the weapon to the appellant, leading to the murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and delivering the special report vitiated the prosecution case? 2. Whether the testimony of the eye-witnesses was credible and reliable? 3. Whether the motive for the murder was established? 4. Whether the non-examination of certain witnesses adversely affected the appellant's case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and delivering the special report was satisfactorily explained by the circumstances, including the absence of male family members and the emotional state of the deceased's wife. 2. The court found the statements of the eye-witnesses to be consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and free from major discrepancies. 3. The court considered the motive, though not crucial, to be established by the testimony of the deceased's wife regarding the appellant's evil eye on her. 4. The court held that the non-examination of certain witnesses was justified as one was won over by the accused and the other was not an eye-witness.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Sat Pal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st October, 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. By this judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 302, IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in case of default of payment of fine. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge also ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. A case vide FIR Exhibit P1/B, under Section 302, IPC and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act was registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Patiala, on 12.10.1992 against the appellant on the basis of the statement of PW 1 Sinder Devi w/o Om Nath (deceased). The statement of PW 1 Sinder Devi was made on 12.10.1992 at 9.40 a.m. before Inspector Rachhpal Singh (PW 6) at the level crossing No. 21, Patiala. Recording of the FIR Exhibit P1/B commenced at 10 a.m. on 12.10.1992 and was completed at 11.10 a.m. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, through Constable Gurmit Singh at 3.30 p.m. on 12.10.1992 itself. It may be stated here that the distance between the Police Station and the Civil Courts is 2 kms.
3. Sinder Devi (PW 1) in her statement Exhibit P.1, stated that her husband Om Nath was posted as a Peon in the Excise Department and they were living as tenant in the house of Surjit Singh (appellant herein) in Sewak Colony, Patiala at a monthly rent of Rs. 360/-, and two, three more tenants were also living in the said house. She further stated that she had two daughters aged about four years and three years and the owner of the house, Surjit Singh was habitual of drinking, and sometimes used to see her with bad intentions and she had told her husband about this matter. She further stated that on 11.10.92 Surjit Singh came near their room and enquired about her husband and she told him that her husband had gone to attend the marriage of the daughter of his friend and would return soon, but even then he remained standing in their courtyard for 15/20 minutes and went away thereafter. Her husband returned home at 7 p.m. and she and her husband along with their children after taking their meals went to sleep and bolted the door of the room from inside.
4. At about 10/11 p.m. there was a knock at the door of their room from outside and her husband switched on the light of the courtyard from inside and then she and her husband opened the door and saw that Surjit Singh was standing in the courtyard armed with sten-gun in his hand. She further stated that her husband by taking ill of it, asked him about the knocking of the door at night but Surjit Singh replied that he was the owner of the house and he could knock the door at whatever time he wanted. Thereafter, an altercation took place between her husband and Surjit Singh and on hearing their raula, some of their neighbours and other tenants namely Prem Nath and Gunman Jasbir Singh reached the spot. Then her husband said in a loud voice that although they were poor but had respect and it was not good for Surjit Singh to knock at the doors of others at midnight. At this Surjit Singh got enraged and fired at her husband with his sten-gun holding in his hand, which usually was kept by his Gunman and which hit on his right flank. On hearing the sound of fire-shot and raula, when many people gathered there, Surjit Singh started posing that gun had been fired accidentally and he alongwith other persons took her husband to Rajindra Hospital in an injured condition for treatment, where her husband died. She further stated and that their neighbor Prem Nath, Jasbir Singh gunman of Surjit Singh, had seen the entire occurrence and the cause of murder was that earlier also Surjit Singh use
