DATE : 09-05-2000 2000-(106)-CRLJ -3210 -P&H

PENAL LAW MURDER DEATH SENTENCE
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300 and 34 – Murder case – Deceased and his son were shot by accused-persons on the roof of their house – presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural – There is no circumstance to even remotely suspect their presence – Medical evidence is worthy of credence – Minor discrepancies resulting from incessant cross-examination have been duly explained – Medical evidence corroborating the ocular testimony – Inadvertent mistake in the description of the injury of accused was duly explained by the witness during the course of his statement before the Court – Thee was no culpable delay in the despatch of the empties and the weapons – Further, the recoveries and the Forensic Science Laboratory report fully corroborate the story of the prosecution – Accused are guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder – However, presence of other three accused at the place of occurrence not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that they shared the common intention to murder deceased person – Hence, benefit of doubt goes to these three accused persons
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Extreme penalty of death – Accused have been found guilty of the charge of murder – Their conviction under section 449 upheld – However, it is not the rarest of rare cases so as to call for the award of the extreme penalty of death – The sentence of death is reduced to that of life imprisonment – In facts and circumstances, amount of Rs. 4 lacs directed to be paid to the widow of deceased as compensation
Conclusion
In facts and circumstances, amount of Rs. 4 lacs directed to be paid to the widow of deceased as compensation.
JUDGE(S) :

Jawahar Lal Gupta
Mehtab S Gill
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. :- The five appellants were tried for offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 149, 449, IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial Court after examination of the evidence has proposed the penalty of death for appellants-Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh. It has also awarded different terms of imprisonment to all the five appellants. Thus, we have Murder Reference No. 2 of 1999. The convicts have filed Criminal Appeal No. 130-DB of 1999. The orders of conviction under the Arms Act have been challenged by Gurmit Singh, Satnam Singh and Rachhpal Singh through Criminal Appeal No. 131 and 132-DB of 1999. The complainant has filed Criminal Revision No. 443 of 1999 with a prayer for the award of compensation and enhancement of sentence.
2. The prosecution story may be briefly noticed.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on October 11, 1996 at 8-15 p.m. in Village Srawan Bodla. The story was revealed by Ravinder Singh (PW. 3) to Sub Inspector-Ranjit Singh (PW. 12) at 11 p.m. His father-Virsa Singh aged 52 years and brother-Kulwant Singh who was 19 years old, were shot by Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh on the roof of their house. The special report had reached the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar on October 12, 1996 at 2.45 a.m. Accordingly to the counsel for the State of Punjab, Muktsar is at a distance of about 30 kms. from Malout. The Police Station, Malout is at a distance of about 9 kms. from Village Srawan Bodla. On the basis of the statement, First Information Report Ex. PH was recorded at 11 p.m.
3. According to the FIR, Ravinder Singh is an agriculturist residing in the village along with his brother-Kulwant Singh and other members of the family. His father’s elder brother-Ajit Singh lived in the “adjacent house”. He has three sons – Lakhwinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh.
4. Surain Singh (not involved in the case) owned a piece of land measuring 1 kanal 19 marlas. It is located in front of the complainant’s house. Surant’s house. Surain Singh had four sons – Mohinder Singh, Raghbir Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Sher Singh. All the four have since died. According to the complainant, his family had purchased the land falling to the share of Mohinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Raghbir Singh. Gurmit Singh had purchased the share of Sher Singh. Having done that, Gurmit Singh “wanted to take possession of the entire land”. The complainant party approached the civil Court and obtained a “stay order in respect of this land”. The case was fixed for hearing before the Court on the day of the occurrence. They had come back at about 3-30 p.m. Gurmit Singh had parked his trolley there (on the disputed land). There was exchange of abuses. They grappled with each other. The ladies had intervened and separated them. Then, Gurmit Singh had gone out of the house hurling abuses.
5. In the evening, Darbara Singh – the mastar of Ravinder Singh (the husband of mother’s sister) came to their house at about 8 p.m. Ravinder Singh, his brother-Kulwant Singh, father-Virsa Singh and Darbara Singh were talking while standing in the courtyard “of their house. The electric bulbs were on in the courtyard. A white Maruti Car crossed their door and stopped in the house of Gurmit Singh. At about 8-15 p.m. Gurmit Singh while raising ‘lalkara’ said that they would teach the complainant party a lesson for obtaining stay regarding the land. He (Gurmit Singh) armed with a rifle, Lakhwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh – brothers of Gurmit Singh armed with ‘dangs’ Rachhpal Singh (the brother-in-law wife’s brother, of Gurmit Singh) armed with a 12 bore double barrel gun and Satnam Singh – the father-in-law of Gurmit Singh armed with a ‘dang’ came to the house of the complainant. Thereupon, his father-Virsa Singh and brother-Kulwant Singh ran across the wall and climbed on the roof of deoriwala Kotha”. Ravinder Singh and his uncle-Darbara Singh climbed on the roof. Having climbed, appellant-Satnam Singh exhorted “his son to fire a shot and settle the score. Thereupon, Gurmit Singh fired a shot with his rifle at ….. Kulwant Singh who fell down and …. fired another shot at Virsa Singh who also fell down. While my father was lying fallen, Rachhpal Singh fired another shot at him and at my brother-Kulwant Singh”. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away in the car. On reaching the roof of the deoriwala kotha, he along with others saw that his brother-Kulwant Singh and father-Virsa Singh “had died as a result of fire shots”. It has been alleged that Gurmit Singh wanted to take forcible possession of the land. Thus, the incident had taken place.
6. Pursuant to the registration of the case, the police reached the place of occurrence. Inquest reports Exhibits PD and PE were prepared. The dead bodies of Kulwant Singh and Virsa Singh were identified by Darbara Singh (PW 4) and Malook Singh. The blood-stained earth was taken into possession. The postmortem examination was conducted on the body of Virsa Singh by. Dr. R. S. Randhawa (PW. 2) at 7-15 a.m. on October 12, 1996. Having done that, he had also conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Kulwant Singh at 8-30 a.m.
7. The prosecution has produced 16 witnesses. The medical evidence has been given by Dr. R. S. Randhawa (PW. 2). Ravinder Singh (PW 3) and Darbara Singh (PW. 4) are the two eye-witnesses. The remaining witnesses are mostly from the police force.
8. As noticed above, Dr. R. S. Randhawa (PW. 2) had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Virsa Singh. He had found the following two injuries :-
“A lacerated wound of the size of 2 cms x 0.5 cm with inverted abraded margins present on the back of left side of the chest. 16 cms below the nape of the neck and 7 cms from the midline. The margins of the wound were blackened. On dissection, this wound extended to a wound in the left axilla. The size being 4.5 x 5 cms. The wound was having lacerated and everted margins. A card wad was present in the blood clots present in the wound. The bones blood vessels and soft tissues and left lung were severally lacerated with blood present in the chest cavity.,
2. A lacerated wound with everted and abraded margins at the level of left clavicle, 5 cms from the supra sternal notch, oval in shape, size being 1.5 x 1 cm. On dissection, this wound leads to the above mentioned exist wound of injury No. 1. The bones soft tissues at the lung and blood vessels were severally lacerated clotted blood was present. All the other organs were healthy”.
9. In case of Kulwant Singh, he had found the following injuries :-
“A lacerated wound with inverted and abraded margins slanting in position and of the size 1.5 x 1 cm on the front of left side of chest, 4 cms below the left nipple and 5 cms from the midline. The margins were blackened. On dissection, this wound led into the chest cavity, injuring the left 5th rib, near the constochondral junction injuring the heart and mediastinal structure and extended into the right chest cavity, injuring the right lung, metallic body was recovered from the wound near its terminal end.
2. Lacerated wound with reggaed and inverted margin present on the anterior aspect of left forearm medially 12 cms from the elbow size being 1.5 x 1 cm on dissection, this wound led to a lacerated wound with everted and abraded margins on the posterio lateral aspect of left forearm, 10 cms from the elbow. The size of the wound being 2 x 1.5 cm. The intervening soft tissue was lacerated. All the other organs were healthy.”
10. In both cases, the injuries were found to be antemortem in nature. These were sufficient to cause death. The injuries had been caused with a fire arm. The doctor was cross-examined at length. Reference to the relevant portion of the testimony shall be made at the appropriate stage.
11. The ocular account of the incident is given by Ravinder Singh (PW. 3). He is the complainant. He had lodged the FIR. He had shown the place of occurrence to the police. In his presence, the bloodstained earth etc. were lifted. 3 empties of the rifle and two of the gun were also taken into possession by the police. He states that his father “had filed a civil suit against Gurmit Singh in the civil Court at Muktsar”. On the day of occurrence, he along with his father had gone to the Court to attend the proceedings. Gurmit Singh had also gone. They had returned to their house at about 3/3.30 p.m. Gurmit Singh had reached his house before them. Gurmit Singh had “tried” to park the trolley on the disputed land forcibly. His father had objected and pointed out that “the stay in their favour had already been extended ….. the matter was pacified with the intervention of the ladies from both sides”. At about 8/8.15 p.m. a white Maruti entered the house of Gurmit Singh through the common passage. Thereafter, the five accused persons came towards their house while “raising ‘lalkara’. Gurmit Singh was abusing”. The witness then repeats the story as given in the FIR.
12. He was cross-examined at length. He stated that the farm house of his uncle Darbara Singh (PW. 4) is at a distance of 15-20 killas from his (Ravinder Singh’s) house Darbara Singh has two sons of tender age. He has a brother who is handicapped and keeps lying in bed. The farm house of this father-in-law is at a distance of 5-6 kms from his house. He had gone to him on a motorcycle. The police station, Malour is at a distance of about 18-20 kms. from the farm house of his father-in-law. He had left for his father-in-law’s place after about half an hour of the incident. He had reached there at about 9/9.15 p.m. He had reached the police station along with his father-in-law at about 10 p.m. He admitted having worked in the police department as a constable from 1989 to February/March 1990. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service. Gurmit Singh had been working in the police since 1987 or 1988. He admitted that the civil suit “was not against Gurmit Singh-accused”. He pointed out that “Gurmit Singh-accused was, however, pursuing the proceedings …..” The case was actually against Kuljinder Singh s/o Surta Singh s/o Sher Singh. The stay order was against Kuljinder Singh. When further pressed, he admitted that he had “inadvertently” stated that his father had filed a suit against Gurmit Singh.
13. The witness reiterated the sequence of events regarding the actual occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he and his uncle Darbara Singh were not present at the time of occurrence or that they had not witnessed it.
14. Darbara Singh (P.W. 4) states that he had gone to the house of Virsa Singh to “leave the trolley ……”. At about 8 p.m., he was sitting “along with Virsa Singh and his two sons namely Ravinder Singh and Kulwant Singh …..” They were sitting in the verandah and talking. Swaran Kaur wife of Virsa Singh and Balwinder Kaur w/o Ravinder Singh …. were preparing tea in the kitchen. The car came to the house of Gurmit Singh. The five accused persons came out of that car. Gurmit Singh was armed with a rifle. Rachhpal Singh was armed with a gun. The other three had ‘dangs’ (sticks). The accused had raised a ‘lalkara’ and said that “they would tell Virsa Singh about the land dispute”. He along with Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh had gone on the roof of the Deori while Ravinder Singh had remained standing there. Gurmit Singh had fired shot from his rifle towards Kulwant Singh which had hit him. He had fallen down. While he was lying, Rachhpal Singh had fired a shot towards Kulwant Singh which had also hit him. Gurmit Singh had fired another shot which hit Virsa Singh. He had fallen down. Rachhpal Singh had fired a shot which hit Virsa Singh. After causing injuries, all the accused persons had left with their respective weapons. Ravinder Singh had gone to Village Bughipura to bring his father-in-law. The police had visited the spot. He had accompanied the dead bodies at the time of the post-mortem.
15. In cross-examination, the witness stated that his house is at a distance of one or one and a half kms. from that of the deceased. He is residing along with his mother, wife, children and a married brother. He reiterated the stand that he had gone to return the trolley which he had taken a day prior to the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken the trolley or that he was not present at the time of occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that the trolley was not lying parked in the compound or shown to the police. He gave the details regarding the actual occurrence and denied the suggestion that he had never met the police and that his name was incorporated in the FIR due to relationship.
16. Constable Paramjit Singh (PW. 1) deposed with regard to the arrest of appellant-Rachhpal Singh and the recovery of a 12 bore double barrel gun bearing No. 5878 Dy-84 and 9 live cartridges. Moharrir Head Constable Paramjit Singh (PW. 5) filed an affidavit Ex. PQ. Parcels containing blood stained earth, empties of the 12 bore gun, empties of 44.40 bore rifle, the gun and the cartridges etc. were deposited with him with their seals intact. Constable Satish Kumar filed affidavit Ex. PR. He had deposited the parcels in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Constable Gurbed Singh (PW. 7) filed affidavit Ex. PS. He had delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on October 12, 1996 at 2-45 a.m. Jaspal Singh (PW. 8) proved the Arms Licence No. 13813/DM/Faridkot of the 44 bore rifle issued to Rachhpal Singh. Constable Sukhwinder Singh (PW. 9) filed his affidavit Ex. PU. He had deposited two parcels containing the rifle and the 12 bore gun in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory with the seals of the parcels intact. ASI Bohar Singh (PW. 10) had joined the investigation. The place of occurrence was inspected in his presence and various articles were taken into possession. Des Raj, Junior Assistant (PW. 11) had deposed with regard to the transfer of ownership of Car No. CHK 8320. Ganpat Rai, Sub Station Operator (PW. 13) deposed with regard to the continuity of supply of electricity on the night intervening October 11 and October 12, 1996. Sat Narain (PW. 15) is the Ahlmad of the civil Court. He had deposed with regard to the pendency of the civil suit and produced the certified copies from the record of the case.
17. The investigation of the case was conducted by Sub Inspector-Ranjit Singh (PW 12) and Inspector Bira Singh (PW. 14).
18. Besides the oral testimony, various documents were also produced on the record. The reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory were also placed on the file.
19. The accused when examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and maintained that they had been falsely involved due to enmity and suspicion.
20. The accused examined Balwant Singh as DW 1. They further tendered documents in defence. These need not be noticed in detail as no reference to the evidence was made by the counsel for the appellants during the hearing.
21. Mr. R. S. Cheema, learned counsel for the appellants made a two-fold submission. It was contended that the prosecution story was not worthy of credence. The presence of the two eye-witness was extremely doubtful. Thus, the conviction cannot be sustained. It was further contended that three of the appellants viz. Lakhwinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Satnam Singh had been attributed no injuries. Their conviction under S. 302 cannot be sustained. It was also contended that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant the award of extreme penalty of death to appellants-Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh.
22. On the other hand, Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, learned DAG, Punjab had contended that the prosecution story was totally proved. The two eye-witnesses had given an accurate account. No reason whatsoever for interference with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court was made out.
23. The first question that requires consideration is were the two eye-witnesses present at the place of occurrence ?
24. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the house of the complainant-party. Ravinder Singh (PW. 3) lived in that house along with his father-Virsa Singh and brother-Kulwant Singh. Even his mother and wife stay in that house. His presence at the place of occurrence was totally natural. There is no circumstance to even remotely suspect his presence at the time of the occurrence.
25. So far as Darbara Singh is concerned, it is the admitted position that he is a close relation of the family. His wife and the wife of Virsa Singh are sisters. His house is only at a distance of one or one and a half kms from the house of Virsa Singh. In the normal course of events, it would be quite natural for him to visit the house of his sister-in-law. Still further, he has given a reason for his visit. He has pointed out that he had taken the trolley a day prior to the occurrence. He had come to return the trolley. During his cross-examination, it was not suggested that he had a trolley of his own. Nothing else was brought out to cast any serious doubt about the correctness of his assertion regarding the trolley. In this situation, we find no ground to doubt his presence at the place of occurrence.
26. Mr. Cheema contended that Darbara Singh has two small children. A handicapped brother. There are ladies in the house. He contended that in this situation, it was difficult to accept that he would visit the house of the deceased in the evening.
27. On a consideration of the matter, we find it impossible to accept that Darbara Singh was confined to the four walls of his house and that he would not be able to visit even a close relation living nearby. The mere fact that Darbara Singh has small children cannot mean that he was unable to leave his house. Admittedly, his wife was also staying with him. Surely, she could have taken care of the children. Similarly, the fact that Darbara Singh’s brother was handicapped cannot mean that he had become a prisoner in the house. The brother was admittedly married. His wife could have taken care of him. Resultantly, we are unable to accept the contention that Darbara Singh could not have visited the house of his sister-in-law (wife’s sister).
28. Mr. Cheema contended that the inquest reports at Exhibits DA and DB do not bear the signatures or thumb impression of Darbara Singh. Thus, his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be believed.
29. These two documents are photo copies. The original inquest reports have been produced on record. These are Exhibits PD was PE respectively. These are duly thumb-marked/signed by Malook Singh and Darbara Singh respectively. When were photo copies prepared ? By whom ? Why are the signatures not there ? These questions could have been answered only by Darbara Singh. In his statement, the witness had even claimed to have accompanied the dead bodies when they were taken to the hospital for postmortem examination. Yet, it was not shown that the witness was asked to explain as to why the documents Exhibits DA and DB were not signed by him. SI Ranjit Singh (PW. 12) had denied the suggestion that the signatures of Darbara Singh and Malook Singh were obtained subsequently on Exhibits PD and PE. He had also denied the suggestion that they were not present when the inquest reports were prepared.
30. It also deserves mention that the presence of Darbara Singh at the place of occurrence had been clearly asserted at the first available opportunity. His name was mentioned in the FIR. Even if it is assumed that there was some clumsy mistake made by the Investigating Officer at some stage of the case, it cannot be said that Darbara Singh was not present at the time of occurrence.
31. Mr. Cheema also contended that the medical evidence belies the prosecution story. He submitted that the oral testimony of the Doctor was contradicted by the post-mortem report and the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Thus, the counsel submitted that the prosecution version is liable to be rejected. Is it so ?
32. It deserves notice at the outset that the parties are close relations. They live in adjoining houses. They know each other. In case of such close relations, it would be possible for a person to identify by merely hearing the voice. In the present case, we have the testimony of Ravinder Singh (PW. 3). His father and brother were murdered. He has categorically given the sequence of events and stated that Gurmit Singh “fired a shot from his rifle towards ….. Kulwant Singh which hit him and on receipt of this fire, he fell down. Gurmit Singh …. fired another shot from his rifle which hit …. Virsa Singh and he also fell down. While they were lying on the ground, Rachhpal Singh-accused also fired one shot from his gun which hit …. Virsa Singh. He also fired another shot which hit …. Kulwant Singh. Thereafter, all the accused got down from the roof with their weapons …..” He also asserted that they fired in the air while leaving.
33. It is clear that Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh had fired two shots each of which had hit Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh.
34. The injuries received by the deceased have been noticed above. On a comparison of the injuries with the sequence of events, we do not find any incongruity which may belie the prosecution story.
35. Mr. Cheema contended that the oral testimony of the doctor did not even support the injuries as described by him in the postmortem report.
36. There is undoubtedly some confusion. This position was admitted by Dr. Randhawa (PW. 2) during his cross-examination. He had clarified the matter in the following words :-
“In injury No. 2 of Virsa Singh, the margins of the wounds were blackened. There is blackening on the entry wound and not on the exist would. Therefore the margins of this injury No. 2 of Virsa Singh were inverted and not everted. The word everted in injury No. 2 of Virsa Singh was inadvertently written. Actually, the word was inverted.”
37. After this explanation, the witness was questioned. He was asked – “When did you realize or detect that you have inadvertently written the word everted in injury No. 2 of Virsa Singh ? The witness answered the question in the following words :-
“Last time when I came to the Court to appear as a witness, I got my examination-in-chief recorded as per written in my post mortem report. Then the fact came to my knowledge that I have inadvertently written it as everted instead of inverted. I got confused on that day as I was not feeling well and I tried to defend my report. Then I thereafter went to my house and went through the record then I realized that aforesaid mistake has been committed by me inadvertently”.
38. It is, thus, clear that there was an inadvertent mistake in the description of the injury of Virsa Singh. This was duly explained by the witness during the course of his statement before the Court. In view of this statement, it is clear that both the deceased had received two bullet injures each. This was precisely the claim made by the eye-witness. Resultantly, we hold that the medical evidence is worthy of credence. Minor discrepancies resulting from incessant cross-examination have been duly explained. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony. The prosecution story is not belied.
39. Mr. Cheema also submitted that even the testimony of Ravinder Singh (PW. 3) is not worthy of credence as he has falsely introduced Darbara Singh. He had also attributed a wrong motive. The counsel went on to contend that the presence of the witness was extremely doubtful.
40. We are unable to accept this contention. Firstly, the presence of Ravinder Singh is very natural. The place of occurrence is his own house. The dispute is amongst close relations. His father and brother are the victims. We have no reason to even suspect that he was not present at the place of occurrence. Still further, we have already held that Darbara Singh was present at the place of occurrence. In so far as the claim of Ravinder Singh with regard to the filing of the suit by his father is concerned, it is undoubtedly correct that the initial assertion as made by him was not accurate. However, this fact has been duly explained by him in his cross-examination. He has admitted that there was an inadvertent mistake. His father had filed a suit against Kuljinder Singh and not Gurmit Singh. Still further, we have on record the pleadings of the parties. It is clear that Virsa Singh had filed the suit against Kuljinder Singh. It is on record as Ex. PYY. In para 2 (preliminary objections) of this written statement, it has been inter alia stated that “the defendant’s brother Rupinderjit Singh, while selling the house in dispute, before filing of the suit and this house being within the limits of Red line, for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- to deceased (sic) (accused) Gurmit Singh son of Ajit Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of Sarawan Bodla, Tehsil Malour, delivered the possession thereof at the spot to him because the house of the purchaser already adjoins the house in dispute.”
41. A perusal of the pleadings clearly shows that the litigation related to the property in dispute. Thus, the mere fact that the witness had made an inadvertent mistake regarding the parties cannot mean that his whole testimony is liable to be rejected. The Court has to take a view of the entire case. Minor inaccuracies or inadvertent mistakes cannot be given weightage beyond reasonable limits. Equally, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the facts clearly established because of certain minor discrepancies here and there.
42. In view of the above, we find no ground to reject the testimony of Ravinder Singh (PW. 3).
43. Added to all this is the fact that the two empties of the 12 bore gun and 3 of the 44.00 rifle were recovered from the place of occurrence. The recovery memos are Exhibits PJ and PK. The empties were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, the weapons were sent. The Forensic Science Laboratory gave its report Ex. PAAA. It is established that the two weapons had been used to fire the shots.
44. Mr. Cheema, however, contended that there was delay in the sending of the empties.
45. We are unable to accept this contention. The testimony on record shows that the empties had been initially sent on October 17, 1996 through Constable Satish Kumar (PW. 6). Certain objection was raised by the Laboratory. The empties were then sent on October 23, 1996 after complying with the objection. As against this, the rifle was recovered from the accused on October 25, 1976 vide Ex. PY. The 12 bore gun was recovered from Rachhpal Singh on October 27, 1996. Thus, it is clear that the empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory well before the recovery of the weapons. In this situation, it is clear that there was no culpable delay in the despatch of the empties and the weapons. Still further, the recoveries and the Forensic Science Laboratory report fully corroborate the story of the prosecution.
46. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that appellants-Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh had killed Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh with rifle Ex. P1 and the 12 bore double barrel gun Ex. P5. They are guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
47. Mr. Cheema then contended that the case of Lakhwinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Satnam Singh was different from that of Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh. Their presence at the place of occurrence is extremely doubtful. Thus, they have been wrongly convicted. On the other hand, Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab submitted that all the five accused were together. He referred to the statement of Darbara Singh to indicate that they had travelled in the same car immediately prior to the occurrence. Thus, they have been rightly convicted.
48. On a perusal of the evidence, we find that except ‘lalkara’, no role has been assigned to any of the three appellants. No injury has been attributed to them. They were allegedly armed with ‘dangs’ (sticks – Exhibits P2 to P4) but they did not cause even a bruise to the deceased or others who were admittedly present.
49. It is undoubtedly correct that Lakhwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh are the brothers of Gurmit Singh. It is also true that Satnam Singh is the father-in-law of Gurmit Singh and the father of Rachhpal Singh. They may have sympathy for Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh. Yet, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said with certainty that their presence at the place of occurrence is proved beyond reasonable doubt and that they shared the common intention to murder Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh with Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh. In the circumstances of the case, we feel inclined to give them benefit of doubt. We do so.
50. Lastly, it was contended that the trial Court had passed the order of conviction and sentence on the same day. The appellants were not given an opportunity to produce evidence in respect of the award of sentence. Thus, the order passed by the trial Court is vitiated.
51. Mr. Dhaliwal on the other hand submitted that there is no mandatory requirement of law whereby the Court may be required to give an adjournment. He further submitted that the appellants had made no prayer to the trial Court for the grant of an opportunity. Thus, the grievance as now sought to be made out cannot be sustained.
52. This argument need not detain us. We had asked Mr. Cheema if he wanted an opportunity to lead evidence. He had said No. Thus, the argument as raised is really of no serious consequence in this case.
53. No argument was addressed to challenge the findings of the trial Court with regard to the offences and conviction under the provisions of the Arms Act.
54. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the trial Court in so far as appellants-Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh have been found guilty of the charge of murder. We also uphold their conviction under S. 449. However, so far as the question of sentence is concerned, we find that it is not the rarest of rare cases so as to call for the award of the extreme penalty of death. The sentence of death is reduced to that of life imprisonment. We also uphold the conviction and sentence under S. 449. We further uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to appellants-Gurmit Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Satnam Singh under the Arms Act. Since Satnam Singh has already undergone more than the sentence of four months awarded to him under the Arms Act, he along with appellants-Lakhwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh shall be released forthwith as they are given benefit of doubt regarding the charge of murder.
55. Crl. Revision No. 443 of 1999 has been filed by the complainant. Mr. Gill claimed that compensation should be awarded.
56. We have considered the question of grant of compensation in The State of Punjab v. Santokh Singh, 2000 (2) All Instant Judgments 62. It was inter alia held as under :-
“The Criminal Justice Delivery System gives justice to the Criminal. It gives every reasonable concession to the sinners against God and man. They are “fed and housed”. They are given “legal, medical, psychological and psychiatric aid”. Even education and vocational training are provided to them. It may be correct for the State to utilise its meagre resources to rehabilitate and even pamper the unrepentant violators of law. However, we cannot ignore the victims. We have to imagine the torture, the trauma that the victims – the children that are abused, the women who are assaulted, the men who have been blinded, the parents whose children have been molested and murdered go through even after they have borne the initial shock of the crime. About two years back, it was reported in the Press that two brothers who were sentenced to 10 years in prison on a charge of rape had walked out of the Court, escorted by an unarmed policeman. They had escaped and returned to their victim’s house. They had allegedly chopped off her left leg. The victim had fought a two year long legal battle to get the two accused convicted. After her leg was chopped off, she must have wondered “whether it was worth it”. Over the centuries, the society has been concerned about the criminals and their rehabilitation. The victims of crime, the “victims of a slanderer’s tongue, the victims of an assassin’s dagger have been the forgotten children of the Criminal Justice Delivery System.
The State has the responsibility to protect the people and their property. When it fails to perform its duty, the crime occurs. The victim suffers. In spite of the suffering that the victim faces, the Society expects the victims to support the Justice Delivery System. The agony begins when the person goes to lodge the report. It continues till the end of the trial. The victim is made to go through the sole crushing job of repeating the gory details of the crime. He is subjected to the anguishing agony of a ruthless cross-examination. At the end, he has to often bear the ignominy and indignation of being disbelieved in spite of having told the whole truth.
The plight of the victim under our system is pitiable. In the present day world, it is not the criminal but the victim who shirks and dodges the public eye. He is ‘angry and insecure’. Even ‘vulnerable’. He suffers alone “the physical, the psychological and financial hardships’ that follow the crime. The “psychological wounds” last longer than the physical injuries. The “post crime distress” does not end with the conviction of the criminal. Mere punishment to the criminal does not give full justice to the victim. The system must become responsive to the needs of the victim.
Section 357 arms the Court with the power to compensate the victim. It authorises the Court to impose a fine and to direct that the amount shall be applied “in the payment …… of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence …..” The obvious purpose is to compensate the victim. Is it not time that the victim’s agony was reduced and the necessity of compelling him to go through the ordeal of a second trial before the civil Court was obviated ?
In our considered view, S. 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly permits the Court to direct the payment of a reasonable compensation to the victim. For this purpose, the fine that the Court may impose has to be a realistic sum. It should be adequate. The accused should have the means to pay it. The economic position of the criminal, his family and other relevant factors have to be kept in view. At the same time, the compensation should be calculated to really compensate and not be merely symbolic. It should have a reasonable relationship with the factual position.”
57. Keeping the above factors in view, we had questioned Mr. Cheema, learned counsel with regard to the property etc. owned by the appellants. In the circumstances of the case we feel that the appellants must compensate the surviving victims of their crime. Virsa Singh was only 52 years of age and Kulwant Singh was still in his teens. We feel that Gurmit Singh and Rachhpal Singh should pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs each. The amount of Rs. 4 lacs shall be paid to the widow of Virsa Singh. In case of default in payment, the two appellants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of five years each which shall run consecutively and not concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment.
Order accordingly.
*-*-*-*-*