JUGRAJ v.

STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2005)

JANUARY 27, 2010* [Harjit Singh Bedi and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.]

2010 (4) SCR 895

The following Order of the Court was delivered

O R D E R

Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2005

1. This appeal  is directed against  the judgment and order of  the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 7th December, 2004 whereby the High  

Court has allowed the appeal of three of the co-accused but has dismissed  

the appeal of the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

2.1.  At  about  9:00p.m.  on the night  of  December,  1,  1996,  Bachhitter  

Singh,  a former  member  of  the Punjab Legislative  Assembly representing  

Kharar constituency was travelling in his jeep on the Landran-Kharar Road  

along with Sadhu Singh - P.W. 2, Narinder Singh P.W. 5, Gurmail Singh and  

one Ajit Singh Padiala. As they were passing by the warehouses at Landran,  

Bachhitter Singh told Narinder Singh P.W. 5 that as the bonnet of the jeep  

was loose, it should be properly fastened. On this Narinder Singh stopped the  

jeep and locked the bonnet and then returned to his seat when a Maruti car  

carrying four persons reached there. The driver of the car remained seated in  

the car with  the engine on but  the three passengers,  all  Sikh boys 20-25  

years of age got out. Of the three persons one of them was armed with a .12  

bore gun and the other two were armed with naked kripans. One of the boys  

who was armed with naked kripan got hold of Narinder Singh P.W. by his

neck and thereafter gave two blows to Bachhitter Singh on his right flank. The  

second person started grappling with Bachhitter  Singh on which the latter  

stumbled and fell down. The third person who was armed with a shot gun  

then fired a shot into the chest and arm of Bachhitter Singh. The assailants  

then broke the headlights of  the jeep and drove away in their  Maruti  car.  

Sadhu Singh P.W. 2 accompanied by Ajit Singh left the site of the incident  

leaving Narinder Singh and Gurmail Singh to guard the dead body and made  

their  way  towards  Kharar  Police  Station  about  8  kms.  away  but  as  they  

reached  close  to  Swaraj  Tractor  Factory  just  short  of  Kharar  they  came  

across a police Gypsy with S.H.O. Sub-Inspector Rajinder Singh on patrol  

duty. The Inspector along with Sadhu Singh and Ajit Singh returned to the  

place of incident and saw Bachhitter Singh lying dead on which they picked  

up his body and removed it to the Kharar Hospital. Sadhu Singh thereafter  

recorded the First Information Report at about 11:15p.m. the same night i.e.  

on the 1st of December, 1996 in which he did not name any of the assailants  

although he gave their physical description. A Special Report was allegedly  

despatched through Constable Jaspal Singh to the Magistrate shortly after  

midnight which was received by P.W. 9 - Gurmeet Kaur, Judicial Magistrate,  

Kharar at 9:15a.m. on 2nd December, 1996. The Sub Inspector also returned  

to the place of incident on the morning of the 2nd December, 1996 to carry  

out further investigations and amongst other items picked up two empty .12  

bore shells and a piece of a broken sling of a shot gun and these were duly  

deposited  in  the  Malkhana  and  subsequently  despatched  to  the  Forensic  

Science Laboratory. He also recorded the statements of the eye witnesses  

including  Narinder  Singh  -P.W.  5.  In  the  meanwhile,  it  appears  that  the  

accused made extra judicial confessions to P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 Kuljeet Singh  

and  Kuldip  Singh  respectively  and  Jugraj  Singh  appellant  also  made  a  

disclosure statement which led to the recovery of the .12. bore gun allegedly  

used in the murder. It transpired after investigation that this weapon belonged  

to Gurmail Singh, Jugraj Singh’s first cousin and he too was prosecuted for

offences punishable under Sections 29 and 30 of Arms Act and was duly  

convicted and has already undergone the sentence as of now. The Forensic  

Science  Laboratory  in  its  Report  opined  that  the  two  spent  cartridges  

recovered from the place of incident had been fired from the gun in question.  

The  trial  court  in  its  judgment  dated  13th  August,  2002,  held  that  the  

statements  of  Sadhu  Singh  P.W.  2  and  Narinder  Singh  P.W.  5  inspired  

confidence, that there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR and if there was  

any it had been explained by the prosecution, that the refusal of the accused  

to join the identification parade was a point to be taken against them as there  

was no evidence to suggest that they had been shown to the witnesses prior  

to the proposed identification parade and that the extra judicial confessions  

made to P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 further corroborated the prosecution story. The  

trial court accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-

(i) Jugraj Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Kuljit Singh and Inderpreet Singh were  

sentenced  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.  

10,000/-  each  for  the  offence  under  Section  302/34  and  in  default  of  

payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of  

four years each.

(ii) Jugraj Singh, Kuljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Inderpreet Singh were  

also  sentenced to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  two  

years each under Section 324/34 of the IPC.

(iii)  Jugraj  was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  a  

period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 25 of  

the Arms Act, 1959 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for four months. It was also directed that all  the  

sentences would run concurrently.

2.2. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. The High Court by  

the impugned judgment  dated 7th December,  2004 allowed the appeal  of  

Kuldip  Singh,  Kulwinder  Singh  and  Inderpreet  Singh  and  dismissed  the

appeal filed by the present appellant Jugraj Singh. In arriving at its decision,  

the  High  Court  observed  that  the  medical  evidence  did  not  support  the  

prosecution  story  inasmuch  as  the  five  incised  injuries  caused  to  the  

deceased were inflicted at least two hours after his death and not immediately  

after he had sustained the gun shot injuries and that the prosecution had not  

been able  to  explain  the  presence  of  these  injuries,  despite  the  fact  that  

Gurmail Singh and Narinder Singh had been left behind to guard the spot  

after Sadhu Singh had left  for the police station to report the murder. The  

High Court also held that the statements of Kuldip Singh, P.W. 6 with regard  

to  the  extra  judicial  confession of  Jugraj  and Kulwinder  Singh and of  Ajit  

Singh P.W. 7 with respect to Kuljit Singh and Inderpreet Singh could not be  

believed and the story projected by them appeared to be a concocted one.  

The Court,  however,  held that  the recovery of  the gun from Jugraj  Singh  

appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2005 which had been preceded by a  

disclosure statement was a material circumstance against him and the fact  

that the portion of the sling which had been broken off from the main part of  

the gun had been found by the Forensic Science Laboratory to be of the  

same make and quality, was positive corraboration that the person who had  

shot the deceased was indeed Jugraj Singh. The Court then examined the  

circumstances with regard to the other three accused and found that there  

were no corroborating evidence to supplement the statements of the two eye  

witnesses with  regard to  their  involvement  and in  conclusion observed as  

under:-

“Our  conclusion is  irresistible  that  the  matter  was reported to  the  

police some time at night but the case was finalized in the early hours on  

December 2,  1996,  whereafter the special  report  was delivered to the  

Magistrate at 9:15a.m. The deceased had a gun shot injury on his chest  

with two corresponding exist wounds but no ante-mortem kirpan injuries.  

The  post-mortem  nature  of  the  wounds  as  described  by  the  Medical  

Board  was  such  that  they had  been  inflicted  at  least  two hours  after

Bachhitter  Singh had died, not immediately after the gun shot injuries.  

However,  the  above  glaring  defects  in  the  prosecution  case  do  not  

compel us to hold that Sadhu singh (P.W. 2) and Narinder Singh (P.W. 5)  

did not witness the occurrence. These two witnesses had accompanied  

the deceased in his jeep and did not witness the occurrence although  

their version was exaggerated and they had included Kulwinder Singh,  

Kuljit Singh and Inderpreet Singh also as accused. The recovery of the  

kirpans from Kulwinder Singh and Kuljit Singh and the car from Inderpreet  

Singh did not establish that they had also participated with Jugraj Singh in  

committing ;the murder of Bachhitter Singh.”

3.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  length in the  

appeal before us.

4. We find that out of the four eye witnesses only Sadhu Singh P.W. 2  

and Narinder Singh P.W. 5 had been examined. Admittedly, Sadhu Singh  

P.W. 2, the author of the FIR did not know the accused by name or by face  

and had only  given general  descriptions as  to  their  identities  or  features.  

Narinder Singh, P.W. 5, was however, very clear in his evidence when he  

stated that he knew the names of the accused as they were calling out to  

each other by their pet names during the course of the entire incident. It has  

come in evidence that when Sadhu Singh had made his way to the Police  

Station to record the FIR, Narinder Singh P.W. 5 had also been present at  

that time. In this view of the matter, there appears to be some merit in the  

stand of the counsel for the appellant that had Narinder Singh been present  

at the place of incident or at the time of the recording of the FIR the names of  

the accused would have figured in the FIR itself. In this background, the delay  

in the lodging of the FIR and the delivery of  the Special  Report  becomes  

significant. It is the admitted position that the incident happened at 9:00p.m.,  

on the 1st of December, 1996 on the Landran-Kharar road about 8 kms. short  

of Kharar. Sadhu Singh had been at pains to say that he had to walk the  

distance of 8 kms. as the jeep had refused to start. Narinder Singh, P.W. the

driver of the jeep too had stated likewise but they were confronted with their  

police statements where they had made no such claim. We are of the opinion  

that the story given by Sadhu Singh was concocted to explain,  to a small  

extent,  the  delay  in  the  lodging  of  the  FIR.  Be  that  as  it  may,  even  on  

admitted facts, the SHO, Rajinder Singh had reached the place of incident at  

about 9:30 or 10:00p.m. and the hospital at Kharar a short time later and the  

party had then moved on to the police station about ½ km. away from the  

hospital  where  the  FIR  had  been  recorded  at  about  11:15p.m.  With  the  

Special Report being delivered within Kharar itself at 9:15a.m. the next day as  

per  the  statement  of  Ms.  Gurmeeet  Kaur,  the  Judicial  Magistrate.  The  

prosecution,  has,  however,  doubted  the  veracity  of  the  statement  of  the  

Magistrate on the basis of the affidavit sworn by Constable Jaspal Singh who  

deposed that the copies of the Special Report had been handed over to him  

shortly after mid night and he had taken a copy first to the SSP, Ropar and to  

the Circle Officer Ropar about 35 kms. away and then returned to Kharar and  

handed over the report to the Magistrate at 3:30a.m. - a fact which has been  

denied by Ms. Gurmeet Kaur. It is, therefore, obvious that the best that can  

be said for the prosecution is that the matter had been finally determined in  

the early hours of  2nd December,  1996 and the FIR had thereafter  been  

lodged and then ante timed. This appears to be the import of the judgment of  

the High Court as well.

5. There is another significant circumstance in the prosecution story. It is  

the case of the prosecution that two shots had been fired at Bachhitter Singh  

which caused his immediate death. The Doctor, however, found five incised  

post mortem injuries on the dead body as well. No explanation is forthcoming  

as to how these had been caused inasmuch as that the dead body had not  

remained unguarded even for a moment and though Sadhu Singh had left for  

the police station, Narinder Singh P.W. 5 and Gurmail Singh P.W. 2 had been  

left behind to guard the site and that the SHO Rajinder Singh had reached the  

spot within an hour or two as per the prosecution version. We are further of

the opinion that save for the recovery of the gun, the evidence with regard to  

all  the accused was identical.  The High Court  has in  its  judgment  clearly  

recognised this fact and has given clear and precise findings (quoted above),  

but nevertheless dismissed the appeal of Jugraj Singh while acquitting the  

other three accused on the identical evidence.

6.  Mr.  Kuldip  Singh  the  learned  counsel  for  the  State,  has  however,  

submitted that the fact that the gun had been recovered at the instance of  

Jugraj Singh and that the empty shells had been found to match the gun was  

a circumstance in favour of the prosecution. It is true that the Report of the  

Forensic Science Laboratory does indicate that the cartridges had been fired  

from the gun. The question is as to who had fired the gun and to our mind the  

evidence on this is ambivalent. It must also be seen that the empty cartridges  

had  been  despatched  to  the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory  on  the  4th  

December,  1996  and  the  gun  recovered  a  day  later  on  the  basis  of  the  

disclosure  statement  made by Jugraj  Singh,  had been despatched to  the  

Forensic Science Laboratory on the 12th of  December.  We are unable to  

understand as to why the gun had not been despatched more promptly. Even  

otherwise, a connection between Jugraj Singh and the gun could have been  

found had it been said that he was the owner thereof. Incidentally, this is not  

the  case  as  the  gun  was  admittedly  owned by Gurdeep  Singh  who was  

prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Sections 29 and 30 of th Arms  

Act  and  his  appeal  is  also  before  us  today  which  we  are  told  would  be  

infructuous in a manner as he has already undergone his sentence. We are,  

therefore, of the opinion that in the light of the observations of the High Court  

itself there seems to be uncertainty with regard to the prosecution story and  

the courts below had somewhat stretched its credibility beyond a point which  

requires that we should interfere in the matter.

7. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial  

court as well as the High Court and acquit the appellant. He shall be released  

from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

8. Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2005 filed by Gurdeep Singh is dismissed as  

having becomes infructuous as the appellant has already served the  

sentence.