http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: JOGINDER SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1995

BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2394            JT 1995 (6)    81  1995 SCALE  (4)705

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI,J.      The appellant  was tried  for the  offence of murder of Teja Singh  before the  Special Court,  Patiala. The Special Court has  convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to  suffer imprisonment  for life  and to  pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in  default, to  suffer R.I. for two months more. Challenging his  conviction and  the order  of sentence, the appellant has  filed this  appeal under  Section 14  of  the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.      According to  the prosecution, murder of Teja Singh was committed under  the following  circumstances.  On  4.8.1984 Teja Singh  of village  Thaska had gone to the flour mill of Tek Chand  at village  Gulhari to collect wheat flour as his wheat was left there two or three days earlier for grinding. Jagdev Singh also of Thaska had reached that flour mill some time earlier  for getting  his wheat ground. While they were waiting there  Hawa Singh  of village  Gulhari had also come there as  he too  wanted his  grains to be ground. The flour mill was  not working at that time as there was no supply of electricity. They  were all waiting for Gurmel Singh who was working at  the said flour mill to return, as he had gone to enquire when  electric supply  was likely  to be  resumed on that day.  At about  2.00 P.M., the appellant Joginder Singh came there  to collect  his wheat  flour.  Teja  Singh  then demanded Rs.1000/-  from the  appellant as the appellant had agreed to  pay that  amount on  the  previous  day,  when  a complaint was  made by  Teja Singh  to the  Sarpanch of  the village that  the appellant  was not paying him his dues for thrashing wheat.  The appellant became angry because of this demand and  aimed a  stick blow  at the  head of Teja Singh. Teja Singh  successfully warded  off the blow by raising his hand. The  appellant then  gave a  blow on  the head of Teja Singh as  a result  of which  Teja Singh  fell down and died soon thereafter.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    To prove  that the  appellant murdered  Teja Singh, the prosecution relied  mainly upon  the  evidence  of  two  eye witnesses PW-2 Jagdev Singh and PW-3 Hawa Singh. PW-6 Gurmel Singh the  Sarpanch of  the village  and PW-7  Kundan Lal  a member of  the Panchayat, were examined to prove that on the day previous  to the  incident Teja  Singh had complained to them about  non-payment of  his dues  and the  appellant had then agreed  to pay  the same  on  the  following  day.  The learned Trial  Judge believed  the eye  witnesses  as  their evidence was  found to  be consistent  and reliable  and the medical evidence  also corroborated  it. The  learned  Judge convicted the  appellant under Section 302 IPC as the injury caused by  the appellant  was  sufficient  in  the  ordinary course of nature to cause death.      What is  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant is  that the version of the two eye witnesses that they had  gone to  the flour mill of Tek Chand and that Teja Singh had also come there does not appear to be probable, as on that  day right  from the  morning there was no supply of electricity. He  drew our  attention to the evidence of PW-4 Babu Singh  who has  stated that  there is only one line for supplying electricity  to villages  Thaska and  Gulhari  and that on  4.8.1984 electricity  was  not  supplied  to  these villages from  3.45 a.m.  to 8.40p.m.  The  learned  counsel submitted that  the two  eye witnesses  and Teja Singh could not have  been unaware  of it and therefore it is improbable that they  had really gone to the flour mill. We do not find any substance  in  this  connection.  Though  non-supply  of electricity at  the relevant  time is  a fact  it cannot  be inferred that  they all  knew that supply of electricity was not likely  to be resumed on that day till 8.40 p.m. No such notice was  given in advance. From the evidence on record it is established that Gurmel Singh, the person who was working at the  flour mill had opened the flour mill on that day and had at  the relevant  time left the flour mill for enquiring as to  when the  supply was to be resumed on that day. Thus, nobody was aware as to when the supply was to be resumed. It is, therefore,  not unnatural or improbable that the two eye witnesses and  Teja Singh  had gone  to the  flour mill even though there  was no supply electricity when they left their respective homes. The incident wherein Teja Singh came to be killed undoubtedly took place in front of the flour mill. If PW-3 Hawa  Singh had  not gone to the flour mill and was not present at  the time  of the  incident there  was  no  other reason for  him to remain near the dead body till the police reached there  at about 6.00p.m. Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh (PW-8) has deposed that when he had gone to the place of the incident he had found Hawa Singh sitting there near the dead body. This  evidence has  remained unchallenged.  Even after scrutinising the  evidence of  the two  eye  witnesses  with care, we  do not  find any  serious  infirmity  therein.  We cannot discard  the evidence  of Jagdev Singh (PW-2) because it was  little inconsistent as regards the time when and the person by  whom his  wheat was  left at  the flour  mill. So also, his evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he was near  relation of  the deceased because there is nothing on record to show that he had any enmity with the appellant. Moreover, the  evidence discloses that the appellant is also related to  him though  not closely.  PW-3  Hawa  Singh  was resident of  Gulhari and had absolutely no reason to involve the appellant falsely.      The learned  counsel tried  to make  much  out  of  the seizure of  Bahi (account book) by the investigating officer from Prem  Chand, son  of Tek  Chand, the owner of the flour mill. It  was contended  that the  prosecution ought to have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

examined Prem  Chand in  order to  prove that  in fact  Teja Singh and  the appellant  had really left their wheat at the flour mill  earlier for  the purpose  of grinding.  When the Public Prosecutor  dropped  Prem  Chand  as  a  witness,  no objection was  taken on behalf of the defence. Therefore, no grievance can  be made  in that  behalf now  by the  learned counsel for  the appellant.  No  attempt  was  made  by  the defence at  the trial  to show  that the said Bahi contained day-to-day account of all foodgrains received during the day for  the  purpose  of  grinding  and  from  whom  they  were received. Therefore,  no adverse  inference can  be drawn as contended by the learned counsel.      We, therefore, see no reason to  interfere    with  the findings recorded  by the  Trial Court.  In our opinion, the appellant has  been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appeal  therefore fails and is dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, will now surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence.