Dismissed

Paramjit Singh Alias Pammi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013CRA-D/532/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged a conviction and life imprisonment for murder. The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding the appellant guilty based on the mother's eyewitness testimony, post-mortem evidence, and recovery of the weapon, dismissing arguments regarding the unpersuasive nature of the witness.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and life sentence of the appellant set aside. The trial court's judgment is upheld.

Paramjit Singh Alias Pammi Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.D- 532-DB-2008 Date of Decision: 11.03.2013

¶5

Paramjit Singh alias Pammi

...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH

¶11

Present: Mr. Gurinder S. Lalli, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. S.S.Dhaliwal, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State.

¶13

S.S. SARON, J.

¶14

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement (Ex.PA) of Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) wife of the deceased in the case namely Amarjit Singh resident of Rurke Kalan, aged about 60 years. It is stated by the complainant Gurmail Kaur (PW1) that she is residing at the above stated address and does household work. She has two sons namely Naib Singh and Paramjit Singh (appellant). Both of them were married. The elder son Naib Singh with his family has been residing separately from them while Paramjit Singh (appellant) along with his family was residing with them. About three years earlier to the incident that occurred and report lodged i.e. 10.07.2007 they had engaged a 'Siri' (a person who shares the produce in the crops as per share that is fixed) namely Charna. Paramjit Singh (appellant) son of the complainant (PW-1) had taken away his wife namely Manjit Kaur. Due to the said reason there was a lot of bickering amongst them in the

¶15

-2-

¶16

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶17

house. The said squabble was, however, later settled and they were then living peacefully. About 15-20 days earlier to the date of occurrence i.e. 10.07.2007, Paramjit Singh (appellant) again raised an issue and said that he would keep Manjit Kaur (wife of Charna) with him. The complainant (PW-1) went to her brother's son i.e her nephew namely Vasakha Singh at village Dhanaula and had a talk with him in this regard. He said that they would persuade Paramjit Singh alias Pammi (appellant). On 09.7.2007 in the evening, the nephew of the complainant namely Vasakha Singh son of Bant Singh resident of village Dhanaula had come to them. After taking meals, Amarjit Singh (deceased) husband of the complainant (PW1) had gone to Bhanewala fields for watering the paddy. Paramjit Singh (appellant) son of the complainant (PW-1) and the 'siri' both had gone to the Bhajniwala fields as paddy in place of cotton was to be sown and after fitting the tractor on the bore had gone for watering the fields. The complainant (PW-1), her daughter-in-law Sarabjit Kaur (wife of Paramjit Singh), the children and nephew Vasakha Singh had gone off to sleep at the house. In the morning when there was sound of a religious discourse of a Sikh, the complainant (PW-1) and her nephew Vasakha Singh went to serve tea to the husband of the complainant at Bhanewala fields. There was an electric light at the tube-well motor. When they were about 10-15 karms short of the tube-well motor, they saw that Paramjit Singh (appellant) son of the complainant was inflicting injuries with a ' Kassi' (spade) to Amarjit Singh (deceased), husband of the complainant. They screamed and then Paramjit Singh (appellant) son of the complainant along with his weapon ran away along the

¶18

-3-

¶19

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶20

water course from the place of occurrence. When the complainant and her nephew reached the tube-well motor, they saw that Amarjit Singh (deceased) husband of the complainant had been cut from his neck and he was writhing in pain on the cot. He within their sight succumbed to his injuries. The complainant (PW-11) got perplexed and fell on the ground and she did not regain consciousness for quite some time. Her nephew gave her water and made her get up. The complainant then leaving her nephew near the dead body of her husband (deceased) came to the village and informed about the entire occurrence to Ex-Sarpanch Surjit Singh. She then took him along to the tube well motor. The cause of the grudge was that the son of the complainant namely Paramjit Singh (appellant) did not desist from visiting Manjit Kaur wife of their 'siri' Charna. The husband (deceased) of the complainant used to stop him from going to Manjit Kaur and asked him to work and take care of his own family. Due to this reason, the son of the complainant namely Paramjit Singh (appellant) had murdered her husband. Thereafter, the complainant along with the Ex-Sarpanch Surjit Singh were going to the police station for giving information to the police authorities that the police party headed by S.I. Raj Kapoor, S.I/SHO Police Station Tapa (PW-11) met them at village Mehta. Her statement was recorded and she requested for taking action. She put her thumb impression on her statement. ExSarpanch Surjit Singh, also signed the same. The police proceedings (Ex.PA/1) were recorded to the effect that on 10.7.2007, SHO Raj Kumar Police Station Tapa (PW-11) along with ASI Gurcharan Singh, H.C. Gurdeep Singh, H.C. Balbir Singh, H.C.

¶21

-4-

¶22

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶23

Satpal Singh, H.C. Karnail Singh, Constable Mohinder Singh in Government vehicle No. PB-13-M-8846 driven by Labh Singh were on patrol to villages Mehta, Rurke Kalan, Pakho Kalan etc. When he (SHO Raj Kumar) along with his other companions reached village Mehta, then Gurmail Kaur along with Ex-Sarpanch Surjit Singh of Rurke Kalan met him. The complainant made her statement . It was written and read over to her. She after having heard the same put her thumb impression on it. Surjit Singh ExSarpanch put his signatures in Punjabi by way of attestation. S.I/SHO Raj Kumar (PW-11) also attested the same and made his endorsement Ex.PA/1. The statement of Gurmail Kaur complainant was sent through constable Mohinder Singh to the Police Station for registration of a case (FIR) against Paramjit Singh (appellant). Control room was asked to be informed through wireless message. Special report was also asked to be sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate and other higher authorities. The complainant along with the officials and Ex-Sarpanch proceeded to the place of occurrence for investigation. On receipt of the statement a case (FIR) (Ex.PA/2) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short) was registered against the accused (appellant). Special report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate which was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 10.7.2007 at 3.10 p.m.

¶24

S.I./SHO Raj Kapoor (PW-11) visited the spot at village Rurke Kalan where the incident had occurred. The place of occurrence was the 'Bhanowala' fields. He conducted the inquest proceedings (Ex.PC) in respect of the dead body of Amarjit Singh. Bhola Singh

¶25

-5-

¶26

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶27

and Naib Singh identified the dead body. The dead body along with request (Ex. PD) was handed over to HC Karnail Singh for the purpose of getting the post mortem examination condcuted. The blood stained earth (Ex.P10) was taken in possession from the spot after converting the same into a parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'RK' vide recovery memo Ex.PH. The plain earth (Ex.P11) was also taken into possession from the spot and after converting the same into a parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'RK' vide recovery memo Ex.PI. One blood stained ' kainchi chappal ' (cross-slippers) (Ex.P12) was also taken into possession by recovery memo Ex.PJ after converting the same into a parcel, it was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'RK'. One cot (Ex.P13) and a bamboo stick (Ex.P14) were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK. The parcel (Ex.P15) containing bedding, parna, hand fan and candle were taken into possession after converting the same into a parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'RK' vide recovery memo Ex.PL. ASI Gurcharan Singh and Bhola Singh put their signatures as witnesses on the aforesaid recovery memos. S.I/SHO Raj Kapoor (PW-11), prepared the site plan Ex.PP depicting the correct position existing at the spot. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, besides, the photographs of the spot were also taken. The police then came to the Tajo Kainchian (crossing) where HC Karnail Singh met S.I. Raj Kapoor (PW-11). He produced a copy of the postmortem report, receipt with regard to handing over of the dead body and the parcel containing clothes of Amarjit Singh (deceased). The parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SC' and

¶28

-6-

¶29

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶30

was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PQ. The parcel of cloth is Ex. P.16. SI/SHO Raj Kapoor recorded the statement of HC Karnail Singh. On the same day i.e. 10.7.2007, Teja Singh Panch produced the accused (appellant) while SHO Raj Kapoor (PW-11) was present at Tajo Kainchian (crossing). The appellant was arrested and the grounds of arrest Ex.PF were served upon him. A personal search of the accused (appellant) was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PE but nothing was recovered. An intimation regarding the arrest of the accused (appellant) was given vide intimation memo Ex.PR. On return to the police station, the case property was deposited with MHC Avtar Singh (PW-10) with seals intact and the accused (appellant) was confined in the lockup. The case property was not tampered with during the period it remained in the custody of SHO/S.I Raj Kapoor (PW-11). The accused (appellant) was produced in the Court on 11.7.2007 and his police remand was procured till 14.7.2007. The accused (appellant) was interrogated on 12.7.2007 and 13.7.2007. On 14.7.2007 the accused (appellant) was again interrogated in the presence of ASI Gurcharan Singh and Gurcharan Singh Lambardar (PW-6). The accused (appellant) made a disclosure statement (Ex.PM) that he had concealed the blood stained shirt and 'pyjama' belonging to him along with the 'kasia' (spade) bearing blood stains, behind the 'kotha' where the bore had been installed in Bhajani wale fields under the heap of cotton sticks and he could get the same recovered. The disclosure statement (Ex.PM) was recorded and the accused (appellant) signed it. ASI Gurcharan Singh and Gurcharan Singh (PW-6) put their signatures as witnesses. In

¶31

-7-

¶32

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶33

pursuance of the said disclosure statement (Ex.PM), the 'kasia' (spade) (Ex.P17) and clothes (Ex.P18) were recovered from the disclosed place at the instance of the accused (appellant). A sketch Ex.PW/1 of the kasia (spade) (Ex.P17) was prepared. The kasia (spade) along with the blood stained clothes (Ex.P18) were taken in possession after preparing separate parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'RK' vide recovery memo Ex. PM/2. ASI Gurcharan Singh and Gurcharan Singh Lambardar (PW-6) put their signatures on the sketch and recovery memo. The site plan (Ex.PM/3) depicting the place of recovery was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On return to the police station, the case property was deposited with MHC Avtar Singh (PW-10) with seals intact The case property was not tampered with during the period it remained with SI/SHO Raj Kapoor (PW11). On completion of the investigation, the challan (police report) was presented on 06.08.2007 under the signatures of Raj Kapoor, S.I./SHO (PW-11).

¶34

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Barnala in whose Court the police report was filed in terms of order dated 10.8.2007 found that the accused (appellant) had prima facie committed an offence under Section 302 IPC which was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. Accordingly the case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Barnala on 10.8.2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Barnala vide order dated 31.8.2007 framed a charge against the appellant Paramjit Singh. It was alleged that on 10.7.2007 he (Paramjit Singh-appellant) in the area of Rurke Kalan committed the murder of Amarjit Singh and

¶35

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶36

-8-

¶37

thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused (appellant) was charged for the above said offence. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶38

The prosecution in order to establish its case examined Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) an eye-witness of the case; Dr. Subhash Singla (PW-2) who conducted the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh; Teja Singh (PW-3) who attended the cremation of Amarjit Singh (deceased) and deposed regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the Paramjit Singh (appellant) stating that he had committed the murder of his father with a 'kassia' and that he be produced before the Police. H.C. Karnail Singh (PW-4) tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. PG regarding the post mortem examination of Amarjit Singh (deceased) and handing over the dead body to his relatives; besides, handing over the post mortem report, the parcel containing clothes of Amarjit Singh (deceased) sealed with seal of the doctor bearing impression 'S.C.' along with specimen of seal of the doctor to SHO Raj Kapoor (PW-11). Bhola Singh (PW 5) got his statement recorded regarding taking in possession, the blood stained earth vide recovery memo (Ex.PH) and the plain earth vide recovery memo (Ex.PI) from the place of occurrence and converting the same into a parcel; besides, 'Kainchi Chappal' (cross slipper) stained with blood was also recovered from the place of occurrence and converted into a parcel with seal bearing impression 'RK' and taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PJ). Moreover, a cot and a bamboo stick were also recovered from the spot, which were taken in possession vide

¶39

-9-

¶40

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶41

recovery memo (Ex.PK), a hand fan (Pakhi) and a candle were also recovered from the spot and converted into a parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'RK' and taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PL). The said recovery memo with the signatures of Bhola Singh (PW-5). One 'darri' (rug), a blanket, a 'parna', a 'khes' were also taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PL). Bhola Singh (PW-5) identified the dead body during the course of inquest proceedings. Inquest proceedings and inquest report (Ex.PC) bears his signatures. Gurcharan Singh (PW-6) was present at the time of interrogation of the appellant by S.I./SHO Raj Kapoor (PW-11). The disclosure statement Ex PM of the appellant was recorded. The accused (appellant) according to his disclosure statement (Ex.PM) disclosed that he had concealed the blood stained shirt and 'pyjama' belonging to him along with blood stained 'kasia' (spade) behind the 'kotha' where the tube well bore was installed in the 'Bhajaniwale' fields under the heap of cotton sticks and he could get the same recovered. Constable Jagtar Singh (PW-7) tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. PN regarding taking the case property i.e. a parcel containing blood stained earth and a parcel of simple earth sealed with seal bearing impression 'RK' along with specimen of seal in an intact condition and handed over to him vide RC No.92 dated 13.07.2007 along with the letter and depositing the same along with a letter in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh for chemical examination. He on the same day i.e. 13.07.2007 deposited the said articles in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh in an intact condition. He obtained a receipt with RC and on the same day

¶42

-10-

¶43

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶44

handed it over to MHC Avtar Singh (PW-10) who attached it with the record. Makhan Lal (PW-8) took photographs Ex P5 to Ex.P-8 of the place of occurrence. Its negative were Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Labh Singh HC (PW-9) had brought the file regarding the complaint dated 17.9.2006 (Ex P9) submitted by Sarabjit Kaur wife of the appellant Paramjit Singh. HC Avtar Singh (PW-10) tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex PO stating therein that he was posted as Head Munshi at Police Station Tapa and charge of the Malkhana was with him. On 10.07.2007, Raj Kapoor SHO Police Station Tapa (PW-11) deposited with him in the Malkhana the case property i.e. one parcel of 'dabi' (box) plastic containing blood stained earth sealed with the seal bearing imprint 'RK' and a parcel of plastic 'dabi' (box) containing simple earth, sealed with seal bearing imprint 'RK' along with specimen of the seal; besides, a parcel containing 'chappal' (slipper) stained with blood, sealed with seal bearing impression 'RK', one cot on which deceased Amarjit Singh was lying, one bamboo stick, a parcel containing clothes-'darri' (rug), blanket, checked 'parna', 'khes', hand fan (pakhi) and candle sealed with seal bearing imprint 'RK' . A parcel containing clothes of the deceased Amarjit Singh sealed with seal of doctor bearing imprint 'SC' along with specimen seal in an intact condition. On 14.07.2007 SI Raj Kapoor (PW-11) deposited with him (Avtar Singh MHC PW-10) case property containing shirt and 'pyajma' of Paramjit Singh accused (appellant) stained with blood sealed with seal bearing imprint 'RK' along with specimen seal. It is stated that he took out from the 'Malkhana' of the police station, the parcel containing blood stained earth, the parcel containing simple

¶45

-11-

¶46

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶47

earth along with specimen of the seal for sending them for chemical examination through RC No.92 of 13.07.2007 and a letter and sent them through Constable Jagtar Singh (PW-7) to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. Jagtar Singh Constable (PW-7) deposited these articles on 13.07.2007 in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and obtained a receipt which on return, he deposited with him (Avtar Singh MHC PW-10) along with RC and he attached them with the record. On 23.07.2007 MHC Avtar Singh (PW-10) from the 'Malkhana' of the Police Station took out the case property i.e. a Parcel containing shirt and 'Pyjama' of Paramjit Singh accused (appellant) stained with blood and sealed with seal bearing imprint 'RK' , a parcel containing blade of 'kasia' (spade) sealed with seal bearing impression 'RK' along with the specimen seal for chemical examination and handed them over in an intact condition to Constable Jagtar Singh (PW-7) along with RC No.106 and sent them for depositing them with the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh on 24.07.2007. Constable Jagtar Singh (PW-7) deposited the case property in an intact condition in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and obtained receipt on 25.07.2007. He (PW-7) on return handed over to him the receipt and RC which he attached with the record. So long as the case property remained with him neither he nor anybody else was allowed to tamper with it. S.I. Raj Kapoor (PW-11) who was Investigating Officer in the case was examined; besides, documents including FSL report Ex PI were tendered in evidence and the prosecution evidence was closed.

¶48

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶49

-12-

¶50

Statement of appellant Parnjit Singh alias Pammi in terms of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') was recorded and the substance of the evidence appearing against him in the case was put to him. In his defence he stated that he was innocent and he was demanding his share in the agricultural land from his father which he refused to give. Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) his mother and his father Amarjit Singh got annoyed with him. Some unknown persons had committed the murder of his father and he had been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he would lead defence. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Barnala after considering the evidence and material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case convicted the appellant vide his judgment dated 13.5.2007 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and by separate order passed on the same day, the accused (appellant) was sentenced to imprisonment for life; besides, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and order of his conviction and sentence has filed the present appeal.

¶51

Mr. Gurinder S. Lalli, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) was actually not present at the time of the incident and she has been made an eye witness so as to implicate the appellant. In any case it is submitted that even if it is to be taken that she was present, she was a chance witness and an order of conviction was not liable to be passed on her testimony especially when her nephew Vasakha

¶52

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶53

-13-

¶54

Singh who is alleged to be with her has not been examined. In fact the appellant was demanding his share in the agricultural land from his father and he was murdered in the fields by someone else. However, the appellant has been falsely implicated.

¶55

In response, Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal,Additional Advocate General, Punjab, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the involvement of the appellant is clearly established from the cogent and convincing evidence led by the prosecution. It is submitted that it is a case where the mother of the appellant has deposed against him in the commission of the murder of Amarjit Singh. Therefore, her deposition inspires confidence and she would not falsely depose against her own son in case he was not involved. It is also submitted that Vasakha Singh was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor as having been won over. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) is liable to be maintained and upheld.

¶56

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The prosecution case is that Paramjit Singh (appellant) wanted to keep Manjit Kaur who is the wife of his 'siri' (a person who shares produce in the crops as per share that is fixed) with him. This was much to the disliking of Amarjit Singh (deceased). Initially the matter had been patched up. Later, however, Paramjit Singh (appellant) again raised a stance that he wants to keep Manjit Kaur with him. In this regard Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) (complainant) went to village Dhanaula and discussed the matter with Vasakha Singh who is her nephew being her brother's son. Vasakha Singh stated that he would persuade Paramjit Singh

¶57

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶58

-14-

¶59

(appellant). He came to the village of Rurke Kalan which is the village of the complainant, the accused Paramjit Singh and the deceased Amarjit Singh on 09.09.2007. After having meals, Amarjit Singh (deceased) husband of the complainant (PW-1) went to the 'Bhanewala' fields for watering the paddy and Paramjit Singh (appellant) son of the complainant (PW-1) along with his 'siri' went to 'Bhajniwala' fields. The complainant (PW-1), her daughter-inlaw Sarabjit Kaur (wife of Paramjit Singh), their children and nephew of complainant namely Vasakha Singh went to sleep in the house. In the morning when there was some noise of a religious discourse of a Sikh, the complainant (PW-1) woke up and along with Vasakha Singh went to serve tea at the tube well where her husband Amarjit Singh had been working. When she was about 15/20 'karams' away from the tube well motor she saw her son Paramjit Singh (appellant) was inflicting blows with 'kasia' (spade) on the person of Amarjit Singh. She ran towards him along with Vasakha Singh and in the meantime the appellant fled away. Amarjit Singh was writhing in pain at that time. She saw that his neck had been cut. On being perplexed she fell on the ground. Her nephew brought some water and made her stand on her feet. The complainant (PW-1) then came to the village and informed about the entire occurrence to Ex-Sarpanch Surjit Singh and along with him was going to the police station to report the matter. The police party headed by Raj Kapoor SI/SHO Police Station Tapa (PW11) met them on the way at village Mehta. The statement of the complainant (Ex.PA) was recorded on the basis of the same FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered.

¶60

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶61

-15-

¶62

The sequence of events and the manner in which the matter was reported to the police does not show that Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) would implicate her own son for the murder of her husband Amarjit Singh.

¶63

Dr. Subhash Singla (PW-2) conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Singh on 10.07.2007. He found the following injuries on his person:-

¶64

“1. Incised wound 10 cm x 2.5 cm present in front of the neck 5 cm below chin. Extending on both side of the neck. Wound was elliptical with smooth edges. Wound was bone deed. Clotted blood was present. On dissection of the wound on both side of the neck under lying soft tissue, subcutlaneous tissue, muscles, caroted vessels, juglar vain, carnail nerves were cut, hyoid wound was cut, was fractured. Spinal cord was odematous.

¶65

Incised wound 12 cm x 2.5 cm present, 2 cm above the injury No.1. Underline soft tissue and muscles were cut and underline mandible was fractured. Wound communicate with oral cavity. Wound was elliptical with smooth edges. Clotted blood was present and wound was present in front and both side of the chin.

¶66

Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm on the right side of the neck 2.5 cm below the injury No.1. Soft tissue deep and wound was elliptical with smooth edges. Clotted blood was present.

¶67

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶68

-16-

¶69

Linear abraison 10 cm present on the left side of neck and extend to the front of the neck below injury No.1.”

¶70

The cause of death in the case in his opinion was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury No.1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was immediate and between the death and postmortem was more than two hours but less than twenty four hours. Dr. Subhash Singla (PW-2) proved the postmortem examination report Ex.PB and pictorial diagram depicting the seats of injuries Ex.PB/1. In cross examination he stated that he had not seen the weapon in Court. The intervening time between death and postmortem, it is stated, could not be more than 24 hours. The injuries can be caused with a 'kasia' if the blow is given from the back side while the victim is lying on a cot. The injuries on the person of Amarjit Singh (deceased), therefore, are such which could be inflicted by a person only and the person who inflicted the injuries has been established to be Paramjit Singh (appellant). Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) who is none else than the mother of the appellant has deposed that she saw the appellant inflicting 3 or 4 blows on her husband (Amarjit Singhdeceased) with a 'kasia'. In cross examination it is staed by Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) that her husband owned 8/9 'killas' (acres) of land and he had not given land to his sons during his life time. Some land was given to Niab Singh for cultivation but that land was in the name of Amarjit Singh (deceased) in the revenue record.

¶71

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶72

-17-

¶73

Paramjit Singh (appellant) was cultivating the land with her husband. The place of occurrence was at a distance of about 2 kilometer from the house. They had agricultural land in two places i.e. 'Bhanowala' fields and 'Bhajaniwala' fields. The distance between the two fields was about 2 kilometers. Charna had joined them as 'siri' about one year prior to the incident. He had three children. Two children were left with the parents of Charna and one was residing with him and Manjit Kaur. It is submitted that marriage of Charna and Manjit Kaur had been dissolved. She did not know that Charna had obtained divorce through Court or otherwise. Their divorce took place about three years ago. She did not know as to where the children of Charna were residing. Manjit Kaur at the time of deposition of Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) was not living in her (Gurmail Kaur's PW-1) village. They had not submitted any application to the police or Panchayat regarding the illicit relations of the accused with Manjit Kaur. Despite the lengthy cross examination of Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) nothing could be brought out which would in any manner dislodge her deposition regarding the involvement of the appellant.

¶74

Investigating Officer Raj Kapoor SHO Police Station Tapa (PW11) has proved all the recoveries including the weapon of offence i.e. 'kasia' which was stained with blood. He has proved the deposit of the case property in the malkhana in an intact condition. Avtar Singh MHC (PW-10) has deposed that the case property was in an intact condition in the 'malkhana' and was handed over to Constable Jagtar Singh (PW-7) for depositing it with the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. Constable Jagtar Singh (PW-7)

¶75

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶76

-18-

¶77

has deposed in his affidavit (Ex.PN) regarding deposit of the case property with the Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh, obtaining receipts from it and handing them over to MHC Avtar Singh (PW10). He has deposed that he had kept the case property in an intact condition.

¶78

Two FSL reports Ex.PS and Ex.PT have been tendered in evidence. Report Ex.PS is regarding 'kurta' marked as Ex.A-1 in the lab and a 'pyjama' marked as Ex.A-2 in the lab; besides, a 'kasia' alleged to be stained with blood. These were contained in two parcels A and B. It was opined that the exhibits contained in parcels A and B were stained with human blood. Therefore, the 'kurta', 'pyjama' and 'kassia' were opined by the Forensic Science Laboratory to be stained with human blood. Ex.PT is a report regarding soil alleged to be stained with blood contained in parcel A and soil alleged to be 'sada mitti' (plain earth) contained in parcel B. Exhibit contained in parcel A i.e. soil alleged to be stained with blood was opined to be stained with human blood and the results regarding the grouping were inconclusive. No demonstrable blood was detected on the exhibit contained in parcel B regarding soil alleged to be sada mitti (plain earth).

¶79

The prosecution has also proved on record the complainant dated 14.09.2006 and submitted on 17.09.2006 Ex.P9 made by Sarabjit Kaur wife of the appellant Paramjit Singh to SSP Police District Barnala. HC Labh Singh (PW-9) had brought the file containing the said complaint Ex.P9. In the said complainant Sarabjit Kaur wife of the appellant had inter alia stated that for the last one year illicit relations devolped between her husband

¶80

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶81

-19-

¶82

(appellant) and Manjit Kaur divorced wife of Charna Singh of Rurke Kalan and since then he had started living with Manjit Kaur at Barnala. It is further stated that one killa (acre) of land which was in the name of her husband was not in his possession. Her fatherin-law Amarjit Singh (deceased) makes both ends meet with his crop. It is stated that Paramjit Singh (appellant) does not give any maintenance. He (appellant) often comes to their house in an inebriated condition and thrashes her. He (appellant) asked regarding the Escorts Tractor 335 which was purchased for her by her father. She feared that he would sell the tractor and the money would be spent by him (appellant) on Manjit Kaur. It is alleged that the appellant demands divorce permanently from her. A night earlier to the making of the complaint, the appellant had come in an inebriated condition and thrashed her and the children. She immediately informed police station Tapa. He (appellant) was arrested by them. While going he had threatened that whenever he would come from the police station he would kill her and the children. Then she would go to Barnala. She believed that the appellant was fully under the influence of Manjit Kaur and at her instance he would kill them and consequently the way for Manjit Kaur would become clear. The said complaint (Ex.P9) further fortifies the motive that Paramjit Singh (appellant) indeed had undesirable relations with Manjit Kaur wife of Charna.

¶83

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Gurmail Kaur (complainant) (PW-1) was not present at the time of occurrence and that in any case she was a chance witness are not tenable and in any case not of much consequence as Gurmail Kaur

¶84

-20-

¶85

Crl. Appeal No.D-532-DB of 2008

¶86

(PW-1) would not falsely implicate her own son. It is quite well know that the ladies in the villages while their husbands are away in the fields do take tea to serve them in the morning after they have spent the entire nights in the fields. Therefore, it was not uncommon for Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) to be taking tea for her husband Amarjit Singh (deceased) in the morning after he had spent the night in the fields and for her to see the incident in the manner in which it had occurred; besides, being the mother of the appellant she would not depose falsely against him. The fact that Vasakha Singh nephew of Gurmail Kaur (PW-1) has not been examined is not of much consequence as he was given up by the prosecution as having been won over. Vasakha Singh and Paramjit Singh (appellant) are first cousins. Therefore, the possibility of his being won over by the appellant cannot be ruled out. In any case, the case of the prosecution is established from the other evidence and materials on record. The non examination of Vasakha Singh is hardly of any significance.

¶87

Therefore, the learned trial Court having record findings of guilt against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material on record would not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶88

Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶89

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶90

(S.P. BANGARH) JUDGE

¶91

11.03.2013 aarti/A.Kaundal

Paramjit Singh Alias Pammi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh Alias Pammi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of Punjab

Amardeep Vs State of Haryana

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Hamir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dalbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Divya Vs Vipin Sangwan