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

PETITIONER: KAPUR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/08/1995

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

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 447 1995 SCALE  (4)629

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           JUDGMENT M.K.MUKHERJEE.J.      Kapur Singh,  the appellant  herin, was placed on trial before  the   learned  Additional   Judge,  Special   Court, Ludhiana, to answer charges under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code  and 27  of the  Arms Act, 1959 on the allegation that on  March 27,  1984 he committed the murder of his real brother Darshan  Singh with  a pistol.  On conclusion of the trial the  learned Judge  convicted him  of both the charges and sentenced  him to  imprisonment for  life and  a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in  default, to  rigorous imprisonment  for  two years more  for the  former and to rigorous imprisonment for two years  more for  the former and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for  three months  more for  the latter, with a direction  that   the  substantive   sentences   shall   run concurrently. The  above order of conviction and sentence is under challange  in this  appeal preferred  by the appellant under Section  14 of  the Terrorist  Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.      Shorn of  details, the  prosecution case  is  that  the deceased Darshan  Singh and  the appellant  used to  live in adjacent houses in village Jangpur within the police station of Dakha  in the  District of  Ludhiana. About  2.1/2  years prior to  his death  a prosecution  was launched against him and his  son  Jagmel  Singh  for  causing  injuries  to  the appellant. Since then the relations between the two brothers became strained.  On March 27, 1984, the appellant was found moving around  the house  of Darshan Singh since noon. At or about 6.30  P.M. while  drawing water  from the nearby hand- pump he  started hurling abuses towards Darshan Singh in his absence and  gave out  that he would kill him. After hurling abuses  the   appellant  went   towards  the  village  gate. Apprehending that  the appellant  might translate his threat into action,  Inderhit Singh (P.W.1), another son of Darshan Singh, followed  him accopained  by his mother Smt. Niranjan

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

Kaur (P.W.2)..  At that  time Darshan Singh was sitting on a chounta (raised  platform) by  the side  of the village pond which is near the village gate. Reaching there the appellant took out  a pistol  from the  fold of  his chaddar which was wrapped around  his body  and fired  a shot  aiming  Darshan Singh. He  immediately fell  down  on  the  spot.  Then  the appellant dragged  him to  the nearby  pond and threw him in its water.  Thereafter he  ran away. After the appellant had fled away,  Inderjit Singh  and his  mother went  to  rescue Darshan Singh  from the pond but found him dead. Leaving his mother  near   the  dead  body,  Inderjit  Singh  rushed  to Chowkidar Bachan  Singh (P.W.3)  and narrated  the incident. Inderjit Singh then approached Mukhtiar Singh of his village and accompained by him went to the police station and lodged a First  Information Report.  S.I. Jagir  Singh (P.W.8), who recorded  the   First  Information   Report,  took   up  the investigation  of  this  case  and  went  to  the  place  of occurrence. He  arranged to have the photographs of the dead body taken  while inside  the pond  and after it was brought out. He  held inquest  on the dead body and then sent it for post-mortem examination.  Besides, preparing  a site plan he seized an  empty cartridge, the turban of the deveased which was embedded  with two  cardboards and  some  pellets,  some blood stained  earth, one  parna and  a pair  of  shoes.  In course of  the investigation  he arrested  the appellatn  on March 31,  1984 and  pursuant to  the statement  made by him recovered the pistol (Ex. P.17) and two cartridges (Ex. P.18 and 19).  He sealed  those articles and sent the same to the Ballistic  Expert   for  his   opinion.  On   completion  of investigation  he   submitted   charge-sheet   against   the appellant and  in due  course the  case  was  committed  for trial.      The  appellant   pleaded  not  guilty  to  the  charges levelled against  him and  contended  that  he  was  falsely implicated.  His  specific  defence  was  that  his  another brother Nirmal Singh had a dispute with Darshan Singh over a house jointly  owned by  them. Over that issue Darshan Singh and his  sons Jagmel Singh and Dayal Singh had assaulted him and other  members of  his family  for which he instituted a police case  against them.  He also contended that as he was the sole  bread-earner of  the family  and earning  a  total monthly remuneration  of Rs.1600/-  to 1700/- as an employee of the  Punjab Roadways,  he was made a target by the family members of the deceased.      In support  of its  case the  prosecution examined nine witnesses but  no witness was examined by the appellant. He, however, tendered  his pay  certificate to  show his monthly income.      On perusal  of the  impugned judgment  we find  that in recording the  order of  conviction and  sentence the  trial Judge held  that the  prosecution succeeded  in proving that the appellant  had a  motive for  the crime, that the ocular version of  the incident  as given  out  by  Inderjit  Singh (P.W.1) and  Niranjan Kaur  (P.W.2) was  reliable, that  the medical evidence  fully supported  the prosection  case  and that the  First Information  Report was  lodged with  utmost dispatch and  contained the  quintessence of the prosecution case. The  trial Judge,  however, found that the recovery of an empty  cartridge from  the spot  and of  the  pistol  and cartridges pursuant  to teh  statement of  the appellant had not been proved in a satisfactory manner.      To ascertain whether the findings of the trial court on which the  conviction is  based, are  sustainable or  not we have gone  through the  record. On  a careful perusal of the evidence of the two eye-witneses, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.2 we

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

find that  they have fully supported the prosectuion case as narrated earlier.  Both of  them were  subjected to detailed and searching  cross examination  but the  defence could not succeed in  eliciting any  favourable answer or discrediting them. On  the contrary,  the evidence  of P.W.1  gets  ample corroboration from  that of  Bachan Singh  (P.W.5)  to  whom P.W.1 rushed  after the death of his father and narrated the incident. The  other corroboration  of P.W.1’s  evidence  is furnished by the fact that the FIR containing the details of the prosection  case was  lodged within  two  hours  of  the incident and  reached the  Special MAgistrate  on that  very night at 2 A.M.      We next find that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses fits in  with  the  medical  evidence.  Dr.  Subhash  Bhatta (P.W.3) who  held post-mortem examination upon the dead body of Darshan  Singh found  a central  irregular wound of 1/2"x 1/2" with  inverted margin  on the left temporal region 1/2" away from  the left  eye. According  to P.W.3  there was  no buring and no balckening around the wound but some tattooing were present  around the  margin. The doctor opined that the injury was  caused by  a fire-arm  and it  was sufficient to cause death  in the  ordinary course of nature. Relying upon an answer  elicited in  cross-examination of  P.W.3 that the injury indicated that the gun was fired from a distance of 3 to 6  ft., the  learned counsel  for the appellant submitted that the opinion so expressed completely discredited the two eye-witnesses as they stated that the appellant fired from a distance of  two Karmas (one Karma is equal to 5 ft.). There is no substance in this contention as it was not expected of P.Ws. 1  and 2 to speak about the distance with mathematical precision.      The  evidence  of  the  eye-witnesses  also  gets  some support from  that of  Investigating Officer (P.W.8) when he testified that  he found and seized some blood stained earth from the  place of  incident and  the report of the chemical analysis shows that it contained human blood.      For the  forgoing discussion  it mist  be held that the prosecution has  been able  to conclusively  prove that  the appellant committed the murder of his brother Darshan Singh. We, therefore,  need not  fo into the question as to whether the prosecution  has succeeded in proving the motive for the crime.      The appeal  therefore stands  dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, will now surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence.