Conviction under Sections 302/382 IPC and Section 5 TADA for the fatal firing on a former extremist who refused to rejoin terrorist activities. The Supreme Court found the related eyewitnesses trustworthy, corroborated by post-mortem evidence showing four gunshot injuries sufficient to cause death, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 923
DILBAGH SINGH
A
/.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No.477 of 2007)
MAY 27, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
-~
-·
"
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021382 - Accused persons armed with deadly fire arms attacked deceased - Fatal gun shot injuries caused to deceased - Motive being enmity between the c parties - Conviction u/s 3021382 and s. 5 of TADA - Justification of - Held: Conviction was based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record- Evidence of eye-witnesses even thought related to deceased, was trustworthy and free from any doubtGun shot injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary D course of nature - Thus, conviction justified - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - s. 5 - Evidence.
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day, when P.W.7-complainant and JG were returning to their house from their fields, the appellant along with JB and an unknown accomplice armed with fire arms suddenly came there. At that time, the complainant was armed with .303 bore riferand JG was armed with 7.62 bore rifer, which were provided to them by the Government for their protection against terrorists activities in the area. Appellant and JB opened fire on JG as a result JG fell down. The unknown accomplice picked up the rifle of JG and shot at JG who died on the spot. PW.7 took shelter by the side of the water channel and opened fire in the air to scare the accused. After sometime the accused stopped firing and fled away. Accused took away the rifle of JG. The complainant rushed to the place where JG was lying dead. P.W. 4-father of JG witnessed the entire incident from his house and rushed to the scene of occurrence. According to the complainant, thP motive behind the murder of JG
E
F
G
923
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008) 9 S.C.R.
A was that that JG was member of extremist activities with the accused and had abandoned the extremist activities and got married whereas the accused wanted JG to join their extremist activities, but he refused to do so. The complaint was lodged. The investigation was carried out. The BInvestigationOfficertookintopossessiontheblood- stained earth; two empty cartridges of 7.62 bore; 20 empty cartridges of AK-47 rifle and 7 empty cartridges of .303 bore near the dead body. All the articles were packed and sealed and were deposited with the P.W. 12-MHC. The blood-stained earth was sent to the Chemical Examiner c whereas empty cartridges were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The doctor conducted the post mortem. The accused JB and the unknown accomplice were killed in the police encounter. The appellant was arrested. The prosecution witnesses as also defence witnesses were Dexamined. The Additional Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 302/382 IPC and s. 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Hence the present appeal.
•
..
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
F
HELD: 1.1 In the light of the evidence, the evaluation of the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from manifest error and improper appreciation of evidence on record warranting any interference in this appeal. [Para 21) [936-F,G]
1.2 On independent scrutiny of the entire evidence produced on record, more particularly the testimony of P.W.4-father and P.W.7-brother of the deceased, it stands fully proved that on 9.5.1992, around 7.00 p.m., P.W.7 and Gthe deceased were returningtotheirhouse after doing routine agricultural pursuits in the fields, the appellant along with JG and one more unknown accomplice armed with fire arms suddenly came and stood in front of them near the chowk located near their house and opened fire at JG and shot him dead. The evidence of the eye witH nesses could not be shattered by the prosecution and
925
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
~ • I (
J.
their evidence has been found trustworthy, reliable and A free from any doubt. [Para 15] [932-F,G, 933-D]
1.3 It is found that PWs 4 and 7 are the truthful witnesses who helplessly witnessed the crime from the close range but could not help the deceased because of the sudden attack on him by the accused who were three inB number with deadly fire arms. P.W.7 fortunately protected himself by taking shelter by the side of the water channel as he could not take proper position and target the assailants with his fire arm and he could only succeed in firing shots in the air so that he could protect himself and c when he looked at his brother the assailants had already done their job. P.W.4 at the relevant time was about 65 years of age and was unarmed while standing on the terrace of his house which fact itself was enough to prove that he could not target the assailants to save his son from D their brutal attack. It was but natural that under such fearful and dangerous circumstances it could not be expected from people of ordinary prudence such as P.Ws.4 and 7 that they could encounter with the terrorists who had come with pre-meditated plan to take revenge with the deceased who turned down their command of not joinE ing the terrorist activities in the areas of operation. There is no material contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence appearing on record. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7 finds corroboration from the post mortem report of the deceased which proves that the assailants had used F deadly fire arms and as many as four direct gun shot injuries were inflicted on the body of the deceased which resuited in 8 injuries of the wounds having entry and exit of the gun shots. There were also multiple fractures of skull bone of the deceased and brain matter was badly damG aged as deposed by the doctor-P.W 5. The doctor opined that the cause of death of JG was gun shot injuries to brain and right lung, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antemortem. [Paras 16 and 19] [935-D-H, 936-A,B, 934-D]
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 9 S.C.R.
,__
~
I-
A 1.4 The deposition of P.W. 12-lncharge of the Malkhana of P.S. would prove that as per the report of the Police Station-DOR No. 10 dated 5.4.1992 one rifle .303 bore bearing no. 1050 with 50 live cartridges was supplied to P.W. 4 and another rifle of 7 .62 bore having butt BNo. 476with 25 cartridges was entrusted to P.W.7,under the BOS Scheme for the protection of their personal life and pr.91>erty and safety of the life of other members of the family from the attack of the terrorists who had been extending threats to them. He deposed that on 9.5.1992 rifle 7.62 bore having butt No. 476 was said to have been c snatched by the terrorists from the possession of the deceased and that the entire case property was deposited by lnspector-P.W. 15-SHO with him with seals intact and the same were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner through Constable-P.W. 15, whereas the parcels of Demptycartridgesweresentby himtotheForensicSci- ence Laboratory but the same could not be got compared as the fire arms used for commission of the crime could not be recovered from the accused. It is his evidence that so long as the parcels remained in his possession, he Eneither tamperedwiththemnor allowedanyotherper- son to tamper with the same. [Para 18] [934-G,H, 935-A,8,C]
y
..
1.5 The trial court rightly concluded that the evidence of defence witnesses was of no help and assistance to the appellant to prove that he has been falsely implicated Fby P.Ws.4 and 7 in the case on hand. [Para 20] [936-E]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2007
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2007 of the Additional Judge Designated Court Maximum Security Jail G Nabha Punjab in Sessions Case No. 2 of 15.04.2004
Sarup Singh, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi for the Appellant.
Ajay Pal for the Respondent.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 927 [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The appellant has A filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against the final judgment and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Maximum Security Jail, Nabha (Punjab) in Sessions Case No. 2 of 15.04.2004 whereby and whereunder 8 the Designated Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302/382 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and Section 5 of the Terrqrists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [for short 'TADA'].
A
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 9 S.C.R.
A bore rifle was taken by the accused.
c 4. The complainant asked his father, Balkar Singh (P.W. 4) to guard the body of Jagmail Singh and himself went to P.S. Ghagga to lodge a report of the incident of murder to the police but he met the SHO on the way where his statement (Ex.P1) was recorded. The SHO endorsed Ex. P1 to the incharge of the D Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR No. 27 (Ex. P2) dated 09.05.1992 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/384 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of the Arms Act. inspector Swaran Singh (P.W. 15) rushed to the place of E occurrence and inspected the spot and informed his superior officers and Army Officers requesting them to reach at the spot. He prepared the inquest report (Ex. PA) on the body of the deceased which was identified by Joginder Singh (P.W. 2) and ASI Jarnail Singh (P.W. 17), residents of the same village. On 10.5.1992, the body of the deceased was sent to Civil HospiF tal, Samana, with inquest and an application (Ex. PL) for conducting the post-mortem examination through police C. Ram Dia 1041 and C. Karnail Singh 2250.
929
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and marked Ex. PM. Statements of witnesses were recorded. All recovered articles were later on deposited with MHC Balwinder Singh (P.W. 12) at P.S. Ghagga.
A
B
c
F
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 9 S.C.R.
A.
A original FIR register of this case; Kirandeep Singh (P.W. 7) the informant is the brother of the deceased; C. Tejinder Singh (P.W. 8) took the sealed parcels of catridges to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, Punjab; HC Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 9) proved the death of co-accused Jasbir Singh in police encounBter andFIRNo.41dated 29.5.1992inthisregardstoodregis- tered at P.S. Patran; SI Harminder Singh (P.W. 10) partly investigated this case; C. Hardam Singh (P.W. 11) took the parcels of the blood stained earth and blood stained clothes of the deceased and deposited the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala and MHC Balwinder Singh (P.W. 12) with whom c the case property was deposited in the Malkhana by the lnvestigating Officer, P.W. 12 also proved that one rifle bearing No. 1050 with 50 live catridges along with other rifle of 7.62 bore and 25 catridges were issued to the complainant party for their security. ASI Grudev Singh (P.W. 13) also partly investigated Dthis case proved the death of co-accused Jasbir Singh@Pappu and Bawa Singh (the third co-accused with the appellant) in police encounter in some other case, Budh Ram (P.W. 14) (since retired) Inspector of Police arrested accused Dilbagh Singh @ Bagha on 17.9.1999 and proved his personal search memo Eand the grounds of arrest memo; Inspector Swaran Singh (P.W. 15), Investigating Officer of this case proved the investigation part of this case; Balbir Singh (P.W. 16) proved the report of the Chemical Examiner Exs PW16/A; Jarnail Singh (P.W. 17) the then Ahlmad in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Pardeep Kumar (P.W. 18), In-charge, FSL, Chandigarh, F Punjab stated that the empty catridges could not be examined as the weapons were not recovered in this case.
,.
•
•
•
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 931 [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
....
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302/382 IPC and Section 5 of TADA and, accordingly, convicted and imposed the following sentences upon him which shall run concurrently:-
A
| OFFENCES | IMPRISONMENT | FINE (RS.) |
IN DEFAULTOF PAYMENTOFFINE |
B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U/S.302IPC | Imprisonmentforlife | 5,000/- | RIfor 3months | |
| U/S.382IPC | 5YearsRI. | 2,0001- | RI1month | |
| U/S.5TADA | 5yearsRI. | 2,0001- | RI1month |
c
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 9 S.C.R.
.
._
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
933
E
t ·
G
•
behind the cover surrounding the water channel and opened A fire in the air to scare the accused and after a short while the accused stopped firing and fled away from the place of occurrence. P. W. 7 rushed to the spot where his brother was lying dead and his rifle was found missing. Both these witnesses deposed with one voice that it was the appellant accompanied 8 by Jasbir Singh a resident of their village and one more unknown accomplice who murdered the deceased and the motive behind the killing of Jagmail Singh was that he was a member of extremist activities with the appellant, but later on the deceased joined the main stream of the society and left extremist activities which offended Dilbagh Singh who wanted the C participation of Jagmail Singh in the extremist activities but the deceased refused to rejoin their gang. The deceased after joining the main stream of the society also got married. The evidence of the eye witnesses could not be shattered by the prosecution and their evidence has been found trustworthy, reliable D and free from any doubt.
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 9 S.C.R.
r-
I-
,
A (3) (a) Wound of entry - .6cm x .6cm on the right mid thoracic region. (b) Wound of exit- 2.5cm x 2.5cm on the front of chest in its lower 113rd. 8 (4) (a) Wound of entry - .6cm x .6cm on the right leg in its lower 113rd. c (b) Wound of exil - 8cm x Bern on the back of right leg in its upper 113rd."
As deposed before the court that there were multiple fractures of skull bone, brain matter was badly damaged; there was haemothorax on right side; the abdomen of the deceased was D healthy, stomach was containing semi-digested food material and, in his opinion, the cause of death of Jagmail Singh was gun shot injuries to brain and right lung, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem.
E 17. MHC Kuldip Singh (P.W. 9) of Police Station Patran and ASI Gurdev Singh (P.W. 13), have proved on record that Jasbir Singh and Bawa Singh, accomplices of Dilbagh Singh were killed in police encounter in regard to another case FIR No. 41 dated 29.5.1992 registered against them under SecF tion 307, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Section 5 of TADA at P.S. Patran, whereas Dilbagh Singh was arrested in this case on 17.7.1999 by Budh Ram(P.W. 14).
935
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
J.
-'<
'
other members of the family from the attack of the terrorists who A had been extending threats to them.Hedeposed thaton 9.5.1992 rifle 7 .62 bore having butt No. 4 76 was said to have been snatched by the terrorists from the possession of the deceased and that the entire case property was deposited by Inspector Swaran Singh (P.W. 15) - SHO P.S. Ghagga, with him B with seals intact and the same were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner through Constable Hardam Singh (P.W. 15), · whereas the parcels Qf empty cartridges were sent by him to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, Punjab, but the same could not be got compared as the fire arms used for com- c mission of the crime could not be recovered from the accused. It is his evidence that so long as the parcels remained in his possession, he neither tampered with them nor allowed any other person to tamper with the same.
~ t .
•
'
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 9 S. C.R.
,.
.;
1 ti """
A proves that the assailants had used deadly fire arms and as many as·four direct gun shot injuries were inflicted on the body of the deceased which resulted in 8 injuries of the wounds having entry and exit of the gun shots. Added to it, there were also multiple fractures of skull bone of the deceased and brain matBter was badly damagedasdeposedbyDr.Satish Arora(P.W. 5).
•
~
N.J.
Appeal dismissed.
"
H
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the testimony of interested eyewitnesses P.Ws.4 and 7 was reliable enough to sustain conviction for murder.
Whether failure to convict under the Arms Act undermined conviction under Sections 302/382 IPC and Section 5 TADA on the same evidence.
Whether non-examination of independent witnesses and the defence theory of a police encounter warranted interference with the trial court's findings.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dilbagh Singh
State of Punjab
S.B. Sinha
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
