Partly allowed

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2014CRA-D/100/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment appeals three murder convictions arising from a shooting. The High Court acquitted one appellant due to lacunae in incriminating evidence and mala fide post-facto joining, while upholding the convictions of the other two appellants based on consistent witness identification and direct oral evidence.

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur acquitted; convictions of Satnam Singh and Daljit Singh maintained with impugned orders affirmed.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

*********

¶5

Date of Decision: 14.07.2014 1. CRA No.100-DB of 2009 Satnam Singh @ Satta ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 2. CRA No.108-DB of 2009 Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 3. CRA No.81-DB of 2012 Daljit Singh @ Balli ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN

¶7

Present : Mr. D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, (In CRA No.100-DB of 2009) Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, (In CRA No.108-DB of 2009) Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, (Legal Aid Counsel)(In CRA No.81DB of 2012)

¶8

for the appellant.

¶9

Mrs. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State .

¶10

¶11

MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.

¶12

Satnam Singh @ Satta, Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur and Daljit Singh @ Balli (the appellants herein) along with eleven others were tried on the accusation of having committed murder of Surinderjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'). The others eleven have been acquitted vide

¶13

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶14

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶15

-2-

¶16

impugned judgment dated 25.11.2008/order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar (for short, 'the trial Court'), whereas, Satnam Singh @ Satta and Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur were convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶17

Satnam Singh @ Satta:

¶18

U/s 302 IPC To undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

¶19

Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur:

¶20

U/s 302 read To undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of with Section Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to 120B IPC further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

¶21

When the aforesaid matter was fixed for defence evidence,

¶22

appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli absented from the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 25.11.2008 and after his arrest, he has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 04.11.2011/order dated 05.11.2011 to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine amounting to Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two years, under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

¶23

Occurrence out of which the instant appeals have arisen and evidence on the basis of which the impugned judgments/orders have been passed being common to all the three appeals, the instant three appeals are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment being passed in CRA

¶24

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶26

-3-

¶27

No.100-DB of 2009 'Satnam Singh @ Satta Versus State of Punjab'.

¶28

Case of the prosecution, stated in brief, is that at about 8:00/8:45 p.m., appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli came to house of the deceased. At that time, Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3), a nephew of the deceased, studying in Class 10^th , and wife of the deceased were also present in the house. Appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli and the deceased sat in the drawing room for about 15 minutes and thereafter, both of them went out. Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) and Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) followed them and saw that another person (Satnam Singh @ Satta) was standing outside their house along with two wheeler scooter. Their three accompanies were also present along with a motorcycle. Satnam Singh @ Satta with an intention to kill the deceased fired upon him. When other members of the family came out on hearing the noise created by the fire shot, the accused sped away from the scene. Deceased was lying on the ground. Blood was oozing from near his left ear. Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) took the deceased to civil hospital Nakodar from where, after giving first-aid, he was advised to be taken to Pasricha Hospital, Jalandhar. He was immediately shifted to that hospital but succumbed to the injuries there at 10:30 p.m.

¶29

SI Paramjit Singh (PW14), on receipt of information of death of the deceased, reached Pasricha Hospital, came across Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) and recorded his statement (Exhibit PC). Based whereupon, formal First Information Report (Exhibit PC/1) was recorded. He prepared inquest report (Exhibit PS), inspected the spot of occurrence and prepared site plan (Exhibit PT), got dead body of the deceased subjected to postmortem, recorded

¶30

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶32

-4-

¶33

statements of witnesses, including supplementary statement of Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3), whereupon he added that Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur was also present when the occurrence took place and exhibited his suspicion that she might have got the deceased murdered as civil litigation was going on between the deceased and daughter of said Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur.

¶34

Dr. Vivek Sekhri (PW2), along with other members of Medical Board, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found that there were multiple small holes over left ear and its anterior, superior and posterior aspects were extending over left temporomandibular area, skull bone was fractured, subcotenious haemorrhages were present in scalp, underlying brain and meninges were lacerated, cranial cavity was filled with blood, multiple pallets were present in brain matter, few of which were removed and sent to the police in a sealed cover, as also a superficial abrasion over left cheek. According to the Medical Board, cause of death was gun shot injury to the head of the deceased leading to haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

¶35

On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused, learned trial Court having found a prima facie case against them charged the accused appropriately to which they pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶36

Prosecution examined 14 witnesses including Dr. Vivek Sekhri (PW2) to bring on record postmortem report (Exhibit PL), description of injuries and cause of death as hereinbefore stated; PW1 Harbhajan Singh and PW8 Mohan Lal to show that daughter of appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur

¶37

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶38

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶39

-5-

¶40

was demanding her share in the movable and immovable property of the deceased and in that regard civil litigation was pending; Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3), who brought on record the ocular account of the occurrence besides stating that Harbhajan Kaur daughter of appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur had a civil dispute with the deceased; Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) who reasserted what was stated by PW3 Jagjit Singh Chauhan with regard to the occurrence; SI Angrej Singh (PW9), who stated that the appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and Daljit Singh @ Balli were identified by PW3 Jagjit Singh Chauhan in the police station; and SI Paramjit Singh (PW14), the Investigating Officer to enumerate various steps taken for the progress of investigation.

¶41

When examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'CrPC'), the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution while appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur admitted that there was a dispute going on between her daughter and the deceased with regard to property. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

¶42

As stated hereinbefore, appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli absented from the proceedings at the stage of defence evidence and was declared a proclaimed offender while, in respect of the others, learned trial Court, after hearing the learned public prosecutor and the learned defence counsel came to a conclusion that prosecution was able to fix guilt of appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as hereinbefore stated. Appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli was brought before the court and vide judgment dated 04.11.2011/order dated

¶43

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶44

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶45

-6-

¶46

05.11.2011 was convicted and sentenced in the manner herein-above mentioned.

¶47

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

¶48

On behalf of the appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and Daljit Singh @ Balli, it has been argued with vehemence that the prosecution has not been able to attribute any motive to these appellants; identification of these appellant in the police station is inconsequential as no test identification parade as per procedure known to law was held to fix their identity and they were made to be identified by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) by pointing out towards them which is not permissible in law; and the pallets stated to have been recovered from the body of the deceased have not been matched with the pistols/guns stated to have been used in the occurrence. On behalf of the appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur, it has been argued that her presence on the spot was not mentioned in the statement (Exhibit PC) and supplementary statement of complainant Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3), site plan (Exhibit PT), which was prepared in the presence of Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) and statement of Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) recorded under Section 161 CrPC (Exhibit DA) and her name has been introduced for the first time by the witnesses while appearing in the court. It has also been argued that prosecution has not been able to bring on record any evidence to suggest that appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur was part of any conspiracy to annihilate the deceased.

¶49

Per contra, on behalf of the respondent-State, it has been argued with no less vehemence that the two appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and

¶50

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶51

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶52

-7-

¶53

Daljit Singh @ Balli were sufficiently identified by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) and evidence of their identification has remained unchallenged; the instant case being based on direct evidence, absence or inadequacy of motive attributable to these appellants is irrelevant; failure to match the pallets with the pistols/guns is inconsequential because occurrence has been proved in the oral evidence of PWs Jagjit Singh Chauhan and Kulwinder Kaur; and complicity of appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur is sufficiently established and is corroborated by PW5 Yelachly Laxmi Narain, who has proved various withdraws from her bank account so as to pay the money to the hired killer, namely, Satnam Singh @ Satta and Daljit Singh @ Balli.

¶54

No other or further point has been urged on either side.

¶55

Let's first examine the role of appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur. As aforesaid law was set in motion by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) by making statement (Exhibit PC) before the Investigating Officer but he did not name appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur therein. As stated by SI Paramjit Singh (PW14), site plan (Exhibit PT) was prepared in the presence of Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3). There is no mention of appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur in this site plan. Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) then made a supplementary statement. In this statement, he did refer to appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur as a suspect because her daughter had a civil dispute with the deceased but stopped of saying anything as regards her participation in the occurrence or in the conspiracy resulting into murder of the deceased. He did not even refer to her presence there, on or around the spot of occurrence at the relevant time. Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) appeared before the Investigating

¶56

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶57

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶58

-8-

¶59

Officer and made statement (Exhibit DA) but did not attribute any role whatsoever to the appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur. As a conspirator in the commission of murder of the deceased by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) and Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) while appearing as witness before the learned trial Court is, indisputably, an afterthought and improvement over the original version as contained in the statement (Exhibit PC). As regards the withdrawals from her bank account by appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur, as deposed to by Yelachly Laxmi Narain (PW5), it only needs to be stated that these withdrawals are much prior to the occurrence and in the absence of any evidence to show that these amounts were paid by appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur to appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and Daljit Singh @ Balli for committing murder of the deceased, cannot be used against the appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur in support of case of the prosecution.

¶60

In view of the above, findings of the guilt recorded by the learned trial Court qua appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur deserves to be upset/reversed.

¶61

As regards appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and Daljit Singh @ Balli, we find that their conviction has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Court.

¶62

Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) has given a vivid account of the occurrence. He has passed the acid test of cross-examination successfully. Whatever is stated by him to be very precise, it has been stated by him that on the day of occurrence appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli came to the house of the deceased and took him along after talking to him for some time. He and wife

¶63

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶64

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶65

-9-

¶66

of the deceased, namely, Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) followed them and found that outside the house, appellant Satnam Singh @ Satta was also standing along with a two wheeler scooter and had fired upon the deceased before fleeing from the scene along with appellant Daljit Singh @ Balli. The two appellants, no doubt, were not named in the statement (Exhibit PC) made by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) before the Investigating Officer but it has come in the evidence of SI Angrej Singh (PW9) that after the two appellants were arrested in FIR No.141 of 02.05.2005, they were identified by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) and a memorandum of identification (Exhibit PU) was recorded. It has been so stated by Jagjit Singh Chauhan while appearing as PW3. Neither of the two witnesses has been cross-examined on behalf of the defence on this aspect of their evidence, nor have they been confronted with a suggestion that the aforesaid two appellants were not so identified by PW3 Jagjit Singh Chauhan or that the aforesaid appellants did not participate in the occurrence and/or were not present on the spot, as stated by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3). It is well settled proposition of law that if a party while cross-examining a particular witness does not put its case to that witness and does not crossexamine the witness in respect of the statement made by the witness in his/her examination-in-chief, that part of the statement made by the witness is deemed to have been accepted as correct by the party that omitted to cross-examine that witness. That being so, the defence is presumed to have expected as correct the statement made by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) as regards the participation of the afore-stated two appellants in the occurrence as also evidence of this witness and that of SI Angrej Singh (PW9) with regard to their identification.

¶67

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶68

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶69

-10-

¶70

Not only this, Kulwinder Kaur (PW4) has reiterated, almost verbatim, whatever is stated by Jagjit Singh Chauhan (PW3) as regards the occurrence.

¶71

The oral account of the occurrence finds support from the medical evidence brought on record in the deposition of Dr. Vivek Sekhri (PW2), who, in addition to prove on record the postmortem report (Exhibit PB) has deposed on oath that on 23.04.2005, a Medical Board of which he was one of the members, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found that there were multiple small holes over left ear and its anterior, superior and posterior aspects were extending over left temporomandibular area, skull bone was fractured, subcotenious haemorrhages were present in scalp, underlying brain and meninges were lacerated, cranial cavity was filled with blood, multiple pallets were present in brain matter, few of which were removed and sent to the police in a sealed cover, as also a superficial abrasion over left cheek. He has further deposed that time elapsed between injury and death was less than six hours and between death and postmortem examination was twelve to twenty four hours. This is also corresponding with the time of the occurrence and the death of the deceased.

¶72

Pallets recovered from the dead body of the deceased, no doubt, were not sent for being matched with the pistols/guns recovered at the instance of the appellants yet no benefit can be given to the aforesaid appellants on that account, in view of the fact that the occurrence has been established beyond any manner of doubt in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution as hereinbefore mentioned. Even otherwise, matching of the pallets with the pistol(s) would have only corroborated the ocular account of the version and as

¶73

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶74

CRA No. 100-DB of 2009 and others

¶75

-11-

¶76

is well settled, corroboration is not a rule of evidence but only a rule of prudence.

¶77

Absence of motive attributable to the appellants Satnam Singh @ Satta and Daljit Singh @ Balli need not hold this court for long in view of the settled position of law that in a case based on direct evidence, absence or inadequacy of motive is of any relevance.

¶78

In view of the foregoing discussion, Criminal Appeal No.108-DB of 2009 is allowed, finding of conviction recorded against appellant Manjit Kaur @ Jeon Kaur is set aside and she is acquitted of the offences of which she was charged and convicted. Amount of fine, if already deposited, be refunded to her, as per procedure known to law. However, CRA No.100-DB of 2009 'Satnam Singh @ Satta Versus State of Punjab' and CRA No.81-DB of 2012 'Daljit Singh @ Balli Versus State of Punjab' are dismissed, the impugned judgments/orders qua them are maintained and affirmed.

¶79

[Satish Kumar Mittal] [Mahavir S. Chauhan] Judge Judge July 14, 2014 adhikari

¶80

Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.26 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh 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

Amarjeet Singh @ Dana Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Harwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Asha Vs State of Haryana etc.

Shiva Chohan Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Babita Vs State of Haryana & Anr.