STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGGA SINGH ETC.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 2329-2331 of 2009, Judgment Date: Dec 17, 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2329-2331 OF 2009
State of Punjab .. Appellant
versus
Jagga Singh Etc. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2327 OF 2009
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2328 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
All these criminal appeals have arisen out of the common judgment dated
17.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The appellants/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327 and 2328 of 2009
numbering 2, and the respondents/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331
of 2009 herein numbering 5, were the accused in sessions case Nos. 14,15
and 16 of 2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the
first two of them were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC
and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each with default sentence for the
offence of murder and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default
sentence for the offence punishable under the Arms Act. Rest of them
were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-
B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each, and to pay a
fine of Rs.2000/- with default sentence. All the convicted accused
preferred appeals in criminal appeal Nos.65, 90, 101 and 617 of 2006 on the
file of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the High Court
by the impugned common judgment allowed the appeals preferred by five of
the accused who were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with
section 120-B IPC and acquitted them of the said charges and at the same
time dismissed the appeal preferred by two of the accused who were
convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, confirming their
conviction and sentence. Challenging their conviction and sentence the
said two accused preferred independent appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327
and 2328 of 2009 on the file of this Court. The State of Punjab aggrieved
by the acquittal of five of the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009. All these appeals are heard together and common
judgment is rendered.
The prosecution case in brief is as follows: PW1 Balwinder Kaur is the
mother of the deceased Satnam Singh. PW2 Gurmeet Kaur is his wife. They
were originally living in Village Gholia Khurd and 10 years prior to
occurrence they had shifted to Ludhiana. Satnam Singh was working with one
Jugraj Singh for two years and thereafter he started working with Avtar
Singh and Surjeet Singh. On 09.11.2002 at about 7/8 P.M. Satnam Singh
received a call on his mobile phone from certain persons from village
Dhandra asking him to do some earthwork and it was agreed that they should
come next morning at 5.30 A.M. Satnam Singh sent a message to his partner
Avtar Singh about the visit of the callers for going to the plot. On
10.11.2002 at 5 A.M. on hearing the door bell PW1 Balwinder Kaur opened the
door. Two persons aged about 30 and 40 respectively wrapping themselves in
Chaddars were standing outside and they were let in. On the direction of
Satnam Singh his wife PW2 Gurmeet Kaur prepared tea and after taking it
both went outside and asked Satnam Singh to come alongwith them on his
scooter to see the plot. Satnam Singh took out his scooter and while he
was starting it both the visitors took out pistols from the respective
folds of their garments and fired at Satnam Singh who fell on the scooter.
PW2 Gurmeet Kaur fell upon Satnam Singh and in the meanwhile Avtar Singh
also reached the spot. Both the assailants ran away. PW1 Balwinder Kaur
heard the noise of starting of some vehicle from the other side of the road
and she suspected that the assailants had boarded the said vehicle for
fleeing from the spot.
PW1 Balwinder Kaur gave Exh.PA statement at 7.30A.M. and same was recorded
by sub inspector, Gurpreet Singh at Hambran Road and he prepared Exh. PA/2
FIR at 7.45 A.M. and reached the spot. PW6 fingerprint expert Surinder
Singh raised the fingerprints from two glasses and both the glasses were
made into a sealed parcel and handed over to the sub inspector Gurpreet
Singh in memo No. Exh. PW23/B. Scooter of Satnam Singh, footwear of left
foot lying on the spot, two empty cartridges of .12 bore were also seized
from the occurrence place. Besides two .303 country made pistals with two
live cartridges were also recovered from the spot. He prepared Exh.PD/5
inquest report and sent the body for post mortem.
PW5 Dr. Sanjiv Hans conducted autopsy on the body and found the following:
"1. A lacerated wound with inverted margin 1" x 1" in size, oval
in shape present on left side of lower portion of upper back just below
lower border of left scapula and 2" medical to posterior axilliary line.
There was blackening around the wound with corresponding hole and
blackening of hole on left side of back of shirt.
On dissection of thorax, a big haemotoma was found present in the
pleural cavity along with mediastinum. There was perforating injury of
left lung upper part of heart and right lung along with major vessel in the
mediastinum corresponding to injury no.1.
One plastic, 2 rubber objects joining together and a metallic foreign
object removed from right pleural cavity, sealed and handed over to police.
Corresponding rib and underlying structure corresponding to injury no.1 on
left side of chest was lacerated. The heart was empty. Lever spleen,
kidneys were pale. As per information provided by the police, the above
said person had died due to fire arm injury.
The cause of death in this case in our opinion was due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of the injuries to the vital organ as mentioned in
PMR corresponding to injury no.1 due to fire arm injury, which was ante
mortem in nature."
Accused Charanjit Singh and Jagga Singh were arrested on 21.11.2002 and
were identified by PW1 Balwinder Kaur and PW3 Shamsher Singh. On
23.11.2002 accused Bahal Singh was arrested. The Investigation Officer on
12.12.2002 examined the statement of the some of the witnesses and got the
arms and ammunition tested in the Armoury in Ludhiana and obtained the
sanction orders of the District Magistrate for prosecuting the accused
under the Arms Act. He completed the investigation and filed the charge
sheet against the accused.
The Sessions Court framed the charges against all the seven accused and
during the trial the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and marked
documents. The accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and
their answers were recorded. The Trial Court found all the accused guilty
of the charges and convicted and sentenced them as stated above On the
appeals preferred by the accused the High Court acquitted five of them by
allowing their appeals and at the same time confirmed conviction and
sentence imposed on accused Charanjit Singh and Surjeet Singh by dismissing
their appeals. Challenging the same they have preferred two independent
appeals and challenging the acquittal, the state has preferred three
appeals.
We heard the submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General of
Punjab on behalf of the State, the learned Counsel for the convicted
appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents/acquitted accused
and perused the material on record.
Satnam Singh died of homicidal violence is established by the testimony of
PW5 Dr. Sanjiv Hans who conducted autopsy on his body and the post mortem
report issued by him. The medical evidence reveals that there was
lacerated wound with blackening around it, on left side of the chest,
piercing the left lung and damaging major blood vessel. The doctor opined
that death has occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of
injuries to the vital organ and it is a fire arm injury.
PW1 Balwinder Kaur and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur are said to have witnessed the
occurrence. PW1 Balwinder Kaur is the mother of deceased Satnam Singh and
PW2 Gurmeet Kaur is his wife. The occurrence had taken just outside their
house in the early morning at 5.30 A.M. Both the above witnesses have
testified that on 9.11.2002 at about 7/8 P.M. Satnam Singh received a
call on his mobile phone from certain persons from village Dhandra asking
him to do some earthwork and it was agreed that they should come next
morning at 5.30 A.M. It is, their further testimony that on 10.11.2002 at
5 A.M. on hearing the door bell, PW1 Balwinder Kaur opened the door and two
persons aged about 30 and 40 years respectively wrapped themselves in
chaddars, were standing outside and they were let inside the house. On
the direction of Satnam Singh, PW2 Gurmeet Kaur prepared and served tea to
them. PW1 and PW2 further testified that the visitors told Satnam Singh
that they wanted to show him the plot where filling was to be done and
asked Satnam Singh to come along with them on his scooter and Satnam Singh
took out his scooter and while he was starting it, accused Charanjit Singh
took out firearm from the fold of his garments and fired a shot at Satnam
Singh and Surjeet Singh also pulled out a firearm from his garment and
fired a shot in the air and Satnam Singh fell down and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur
fell upon him and both of them raised alarm and they heard the noise of the
starting of a jeep from the other side of the road and the assailants fled
away.
It is the further testimony of PW1 Balwinder Kaur that Satnam Singh died
on the spot after receiving the injury and she proceeded to lodge a
complaint with police and on the way, in Hambran Road, she happened to meet
PW23 Sub inspector Gurpreet Singh and she orally gave a statement about the
occurrence which was reduced into writing by him. Exh. PA is the statement
given by her and Exh. PA/2 is the FIR prepared by him.
The learned counsel appearing for the convicted appellants contended that
PW1 Balwinder Kaur had not named the accused persons in her complaint and
has only stated that two assailants after killing her son ran away from the
place of occurrence and as per the prosecution case accused Charanjit Singh
was working as driver with accused Jugraj Singh and he was known to PW1
Balwinder Kaur and still she has not disclosed his name in her complaint
and there was no identification parade conducted and they have been falsely
implicated in the case. Few years before the occurrence Satnam Singh was
doing business with his cousin brother accused Jugraj Singh and due to
misunderstanding separated from him. It is when they were working in
partnership, accused Charanjit Singh was working under them. In this
context it is pertinent to note the testimony of the investigating officer
PW 23 S.I. Gurpreet Singh. According to him he arrested accused
Charanjeet Singh and Surjit Singh in the presence of PW1 Balwinder Kaur.
PWs 1 and 2 have also identified both of them as assailants during the
trial in the court. In such circumstances the omission to mention their
names in the complaint does not affect the prosecution case and there is no
doubt about the identity of the said accused.
There is yet another clinching evidence against the said accused which
corroborates the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. The assailants had
taken tea in the house of Satnam Singh few minutes before the occurrence.
The Investigating Officer after registering the case proceeded to the house
of Satnam Singh and solicited the services of Surinder Singh, finger print
expert through the control room. PW6 Surinder Singh reached the place at
9.00 A.M. and found two glass tumblers lying on the table smeared with tea
and according to him he applied the grey powder on the said tumblers and
raised the finger prints in it and encircled those places of finger prints
and put his initials thereon readable as S. Singh and the date as
10.11.2002 in it and prepared sealed parcel by putting them in wooden box
duly nailed and handed it over to the investigating officer for onward
transmission to finger print bureau. The sealed parcel was sent through
PW15 Constable Anish Kumar to the finger print bureau. PW 25 Subhash
Chander, finger print expert has testified that he received the sealed
parcel with the seal 'SS' through Anish Kumar PW15 and on opening he found
two glass tumblers which contained already developed finger impressions
and he prepared the photographs of those finger impressions. It is his
further testimony that he received specimen 10 digits finger impression of
the two hands in respect of Charanjit Singh as well as another specimen 10
digits finger impression in respect of accused Surjit Singh and made a
comparison and prepared Exh.PW25/A report. As per report, the questioned
finger impressions, Mark - A/1 and B/1 and specimen finger impressions
A/A/1 and B/B/1 of Charanjit Singh were found to be similar. Similarly,
questioned finger impressions C/1, D/1 and E/1 and specimen finger
impressions of Surjit Singh C/C/1, D/D/1 and E/E/1 were also found to be
similar.
The learned counsel appearing for the convicted appellants contended that
both the said accused were made to hold glass-tumblers while they were in
police custody and thereafter the finger prints were taken and it is only
to falsely implicate them in the case. It is her further contention that
the specimen finger impressions were not taken before the Magistrate in
accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, and it is
unsafe to accept the evidence led in this regard. She placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in Mohd. Aman and another vs. State of
Rajasthan [(1997) 10 SCC 44].
Both the above contentions are devoid of merit. As already seen on the
direction of the investigating officer, finger print expert PW6 Surinder
Singh reached the occurrence place at 9.00 A.M. on the occurrence day
itself and raised the finger impressions on the two glass tumblers and duly
packed them with his seal and date and handed over the same to the
investigating officer for onward transmission to the finger print bureau.
The seal was found to be intact by PW25 finger print expert who opened it
for examination. Exh.PW25/G is the 10 digits finger impression of accused
Charanjit Singh. It contains the signature of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Ludhiana with his seal and date. Exh. PW25/H is 10 digits finger
impression of accused Surjit Singh. It also contains the signature of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana with his seal and date. In fact
the word 'attested' is put by the Magistrate while putting his signature
in the said documents. In the facts of the case in which the decision
cited supra arose the specimen finger prints of the accused were never
taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section
5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act and in such circumstances this
Court held that it is unsafe to accept the said evidence. As already seen
in the present case the specimen finger print impression have been taken in
the presence of Judicial Magistrate and there is no room for any suspicion
as to its bonafide.
Yet another contention was raised on behalf of the convicted appellants
that the presence of PWs 1 and 2 in their house on the occurrence day is
doubtful since they would have gone far away to village Landey for
attending the marriage of daughter of Satnam Singh's maternal uncle. There
is evidence to show that the said marriage was scheduled on that day in the
village . It does not mean that PWs 1 and 2 had left for the village one
or two days prior to the marriage. On the contrary PWs 1 and 2 have
specifically denied such a suggestion put to them in cross-examination.
Further, there is also no evidence let in by the defence to show that both
of them had gone to the village the previous day of the marriage. Hence
this contention is also liable to be rejected. The presence of PWs 1 and 2
being the family members in the house is natural and the occurrence had
taken place in the early morning hours. When Satnam Singh took out his
scooter, his mother and wife came to close the door and at that time they
happened to witness the occurrence. Their testimonies are cogent,
natural and trustworthy. Moreover, we do not find any material discrepancy
in their testimonies and they are credible witnesses. The Courts below
have rightly relied on their testimonies and the conviction and sentence
imposed on the convicted appellants does not call for any interference.
Insofar as the implication of other accused is concerned the prosecution
relied on the testimony of PW9 Sukhwinder Singh cousin of Satnam Singh
before whom accused Ranjit Singh is alleged to have made extra judicial
confession. As rightly held by the High Court Sukhwinder Singh is not a
person of any authority to help the said accused to get any assistance from
him by confessing the crime and in the absence of any corroboration, his
testimony with regard to extra judicial confession cannot be relied on. The
presence of PW3 Shamsher Singh at the occurrence place as claimed by him is
also doubtful on account of testimony of PW4 Surjit Singh. According to PW4
Surjit Singh he reached the occurrence place and thereafter informed PW3
Shamsher Singh who was present at village Samalsar about the occurrence and
then PW3 Shamsher Singh reached the place of occurrence. Moreover in the
inquest report the presence of Shamsher Singh is not recorded. Therefore
his presence at the time of occurrence is not proved. There is also no
evidence to prove that the accused had entered into conspiracy in carrying
out the act of committing murder of Satnam Singh. On a proper appreciation
of evidence the High Court had given the benefit of doubt to 5 of the
accused persons by acquitting them and no interference is called for.
In the result all the criminal appeals are dismissed. The bail granted to
the appellant/accused Surjit Singh in Criminal Appeal no. 2328 of 2009
shall be cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which
the learned Additional Sessions Judge is requested to take him into custody
and send him to jail to serve his left over sentence.
...............................J.
(V. Gopala Gowda)
...............................J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
December 17, 2014.
ITEM NO.1C-For JUDGMENT COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2329-2331/2009
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JAGGA SINGH ETC. Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 2327/2009
Crl.A. No. 2328/2009
Date : 17/12/2014 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
JUDGMENT today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Madhukar, AAG
Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Nain, Adv.
Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.
Mr. M. P. Jha,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv.
Mr. S. R. Setia,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.
The criminal appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment. The bail granted to the appellant/accused Surjit
Singh in Criminal Appeal no. 2328 of 2009 shall be cancelled and he is
directed to surrender before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to
serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the learned Additional
Sessions Judge is requested to take him into custody and send him to jail
to serve his left over sentence.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)