STATE OF PUNJABversusJAGGA SINGH ETC

                                                                    ...



                   [2014] 12 S.C.R. 505

                   STATE OF PUNJAB .                           A
                             v.
                   JAGGA SINGH ETC.
      (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009 etc.)
                  DECEMBER 17, 2014.
                                                               B
     [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302 and 30211208 - Murder by
seven accused - Two of the accused convicted uls. ;302 and
s. 25 of Arms Act and their conviction confirmed by High C
Court - Five of the accused convicted by trial court uls. 3021
1208 and acquitted by High Court - Appeal against
conviction order of two accused and acquittal order of the five
accused - Held: conviction order against two accused is
affirmed - The prosecution case against them is supported · D
by evidence of eye-witnesses who are further corroborated by
the evidence of finger-print expert - High Court rightly
acquitted the five accused giving them benefit of doubt after
proper appreciation of evidence - Arms Act, 1959 - s. 25.
                                                                E
     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. The presence of PWs 1 and 2 being the
family members in the house, is natural and the
occurrence had taken place in the early morning hours.
Their testimonies are cogent, natural and trustworthy.         F
Moreover, there is no material discrepam;y in their
testimonies. The Courts below have rightly relied on their
testimonies and the conviction and sentence imposed on
the convicted appellants does not call for any
interference. On a proper appreciation of evidence, the        G
High Court had given the benefit of doubt to 5 of the
accused persons by acquitting them and no interference
is called for. [Paras 16 and 17] [514-H; 515-A-C, G]

                            505                                H
    506      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A       1.2. According to the Investigating Officer, he
  arrested accused in. the presence of PW1. PWs 1 and 2
  have also identified both of them as assailants during the
  trial in the court. In such circumstances, the omission to
  mention their names in the complaint does _not affect the
B prosecution case and there is no doubt about the identity
  of the said accused. [Para 12] [512-E-F]

       1.3. The evidence of presence of fingerpr[nts on the
  glass tu_mblers corroborates the testimonies of the eye-
C witnesses. The Fingerprint Expe~t reached the
  occurrence place on the occurrence day itself and raised
  the finger impressions on the two glass tumblers and
  duly packed them with his seal and date and handed over
  the same to ·the investigating officer for onward
0 transmission to the finger print bureau. The seal was
  found to be intact 'by PW25 finger print expert who
  opened it for examination. The specimen finger print
  impression have been taken in the presence of Judicial
  Magistrate and there is no room for any suspicion as to
E its bonafide. [Paras 13 and 15] [512-F-G; 514-A, B, E]

       Mohd. Aman and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10
    sec 44 - distinguished.
                        Case Law Reference:
F         (1997) 10 sec 44       distinguished        Para 14
               •
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminafAppeal
    No. 2329-2331 of 2009.
G       From the Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2001 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
    Nos 65-DB, 90-DB and 101-DB of 2006.

                               WITH

H Crl Appeal No. 2327 and 2328 of 2009.
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGGA SINGH                     507


    V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Kowshish, Mohit Nain, Dhruv           A
Mohan, Kuldip Singh, Kiran Bala Sahay, M.P. Jha, S.K.
Devenkan, Rajneesh Bhaskar, Aditya Pratap Singh Naruka,
Shubham Seth, Adarsh Tiwari, S.R. Setia, Yash Pal Dhingra,
R.K. Talwar, Harikesh for the appearing parties.
                                                                   B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. All these criminal appeals have
arisen out of the common judgment dated 17.09.2007 passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
                                                                   c
     2. The appellants/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327
and 2328 of 2009 numbering 2, and the respondents/accused
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009 herein numbering
5, were the accused in sessions case Nos. 14,15 and 16 of
2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and        D
the first two of them were convicted for the offences under
Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and·
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a
fine of Rs.2000/- each with default sentence for the offence of
murder and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment      E
for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with
default sentence for the offence punishable under the Arms Act.
Rest of them were convicted for the offences under Section
302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life each, and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- with default sentence. All the convicted accused         F
preferred appeals in criminal appeal Nos.65, 90, 101 and 617
of 2006 on the file of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh and the High Court by the impugned common.
judgment allowed the appeals preferred by five of the accused
who were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with     G
section 120-B IPC and acquitted them of the said charges and
at the same time dismissed the appeal preferred by two of the
accused who were convicted for the offence under Section 302
IPC, confirming tneir conviction and sentence. Challenging their
conviction and sentence the said two accused preferred             H
    508      SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A   independent appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327 and 2328
    of 2009 on the file of th[s Court. The State of Punjab aggrieved
    by the acquittal of five of the accused preferred appeal in
    Criminal Appeal Nos: 2329-2331 of 2009. All these appeals
    are heard together and common judgment is rendered.
B
        3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: PW1
   Balwinder Kaur is the mother of the deceased Satriam Singh.
   PW2 Gurmeet Kaur is his wife. They were originally living in
   Village Gholia Khurd and 10 years prior to occurrence they had
C shifted to Ludhiana. Satnam Singh was working with one Jugraj
   Singh for two years and thereafter he started working with Avtar
   Singh and Surjeet Singh. On 09.11.2002 at about 7/8 P.M.
   Satnam Singh. received a call on his mobile phone from certain
   persons from village Dhandra asking him to do some earthwork
   and it was agreed that they should come next morning at 5.30
D A.M. Satnam Singh sent a message to his partner Avtar Singh
   about the visit of the callers for going to the plot. On ·10.11.2002
   at 5 A.M. on hearing the door bell PW1 Balwinder Kaur opened
   the door. Two persons aged about 30 and 40 respectively
   wrapping themselves in Chaddars were standing outside and
E they were let in. On the direction of Satnam Singh his wife PW2
   Gurmeet Kaur prepared tea and after taking it both went
   outside and asked Satnam Singh to come alongwith them on
   his scooter to see the plot. Satnani Singh took out his scooter
   and while he was starting it both the visitors took out pistols
F from the respective folds of their garments and fired at Satnam
   Singh who fell on the scooter. PW2 Gurmeet Kaur .fell upon
   Satnam· Singh and in the meanwhile Avtar Singh also reached
   the spot. Both the assailants ran away: PW1 Balwinder Kaur
   heard the noise of starting of some vehicle from the other side
G. of the road and she suspected that t~e assailants had boarded
   the said vehicle for fleeing from the spot.

        4. PW1 Balwinder Kaur gave Exh.PA statemen.t at
    7.30A.M. and same was recorded by sub inspector, Gurpreet
    Singh at Hambrari Road and he prepared Exh. PN2 FIR at
H
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGGA SINGH                      509
               [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
7.45 A.M. and reached the spot. PW6 fingerprint expert             A
Surinder Singh raised the fingerprints from two glasses and
both the glasses were made into a sealed parcel and handed
over to the sub inspector Gurpreet Singh in memo No. Exh,
PW23/B. Scooter of Satnam Singh, footwear of left foot lying
on the spot, two empty cartridges of .12 bore were also seized     B
from the occurrence place. Besides two .303 country made
pistals with two live cartridges were also recovered from the
spot. He prepared Exh.P0/5 inquest report and sent the body
for post mortem. ·

     5. PW5 Dr. Sanjiv Hans conducted autopsy on the body · C
and found the following:

           "1. A lacerated wound with inverted margin 1Y." x 1"
    in size, oval in shape present on left side of lower portion
    of upper back just below lower border of left scapula and      D
    2" medical to posterior axilliary line. There was blackening
    around the wound with corresponding hole and blackening
    of hole on left side of back of shirt.

          On dissection of thorax, a big haematoma was found       E
    present in the pleural cavity along with mediastinum. There
    was perforating injury of left lung .upper part of heart and
    right lung along with major vessel in the mediastinum
    corresponding to injury no.1.

            One plastic, 2 rubber objects joining together and a   F
    metallic foreign object removed from right pleural cavity,
    sealed and handed over to police. Corresponding rib and
    underlying structure corresponding to injury no.1 on left
    side of chest was lacerated. The heart was empty. Lever
    spleen, kidneys were pale. As per information provided by      G
    the police, the above said person had die_d due to fire arm
    injury.

          The cause of death in this case in our opinion was .
    due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries · H
    510       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A         to the vital organ as mentioned in PMR corresponding to
          injury no.1 due to fire arm injury, which was ante mortem
          in nature."

         6. Accused Charanjit Singh and Jagga Singh were
    arrested on 21.11.2002 and were identified by PW1 Balwinder
8
    Kaur and PW3 Shamsher Singh. On 23.11.2002 accused
    Bahal Singh was arrested. The ,Investigation Officer on
    12.12.2002 examined the statement of the some of -the
    witnesses and got the arms and ammunition tested in the
    Armoury in Ludhiana and obtained the sanction orders of the
C . District Magistrate for prosecuting the accused under the Arms
    Act. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet
    against the accused.

       7. The Sessions Co!lrt framed the charges against all the
D seven accused and during the trial the prosecution examined
  25 witnesses and marked documents. The accused were
  questioned under Section 313 of Cr:P.C. and their answers
  were recorded. The Trial Court found all the accused guilty of
  the charges and convicted and sentenced them as stated
E above On the appeals preferred ·by the accused the High Court
  acquitted five of them by allowing their appeals and at the same
  time confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on accused
  Charanjit Singh and Surjeet Singh by dismissing their appeals.
  Challenging the same they have preferred two independent
F appeals and challenging the acquittal, the state has preferred
  three appeals.
       8. We heard the submissions made by the learned Addi.
  Advocate G~neral of Punjab on behalf ofthe State, the learned
  Counsel for the convicted appellants and the learned counsel
G for the respondents/acquitted accused and perused the
  material on record.

        9. Satnam Singh died of homicidal violence is established
   ·by the testimony of PW5 Dr. Sanjiv Hans who conducted
H · autopsy on his body and the post inortem report issued by him.
           STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGGA SINGH                           511
                  [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
  The medical evidence reveals that there was lacerated wound               A
  with blackening around it, on left side of the chest, piercing the
  left lung and damaging major blood vessel. The doctor opined
  that death has occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage
. as a result of injuries to the vital organ and it is a fire arm injury.
                                                                            B
       10. PW1 Balwinder Kaur and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur are said
 to have witnessed the occurrence. PW1 Balwinder Kaur is the
 mother of deceased Satnam Singh and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur
 is his wife. The occurrence had taken just outside their house
 in the early morning at 5.30 A.M. Both the above witnesses have            C
 testified that on 9.11.2002 at about 7/8 P.M. Satnam Singh
 received a call on his mobile phone from certain persons from
 village Dhandra asking him to do some earthwork and it was
 agreed that they should come next morning at 5.30 A.M. It is,
 their further testimony that on 10.11J2002 at 5 A.M. on hearing
 the door bell, PW1 Balwinder Kaur opened the door and two                  D
 persons aged about 30 and 40 years respectively wrapped
 themselves in chaddars, were standing outside and they were
 let inside the house. On the direction of Satnam Singh, PW2
 Gurmeet Kaur prepared and served tea to them. PW1 and
 PW2 further testified that the visitors told Satnam Singh that             E
 they wanted to show him the plot where filling was to be done
 and asked Satnam Singh to come along with them on his
 scooter and Satnam Singh took out his scooter and while he
 was starting it, accused Charanjit Singh took out firearm from
 the fold of his garments and fired a shot ai Satnam Singh and              F
 Surjeet Singh also pulled out a firearm from his garment and
 fired a shot in the air and Satnam Singh fell down and PW2
 Gurmeet Kaur fell upon him and both of them raised alarm and
 they heard the noise of the starting of a jeep from the other side
 of the road and the assailants fled away.                                  G

      11. It is the further testimony of PW1 Balwinder Kaur that
 Satnam Singh died on the spot after receiving the injury and
 she proceeded to lodge a complaint with police and on the way,
 in Hambran Road, she happened to meet PW23 Sub inspector
                                                                            H
    512      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A   Gurpreet Singh and she orally gave a statement about the
    occurrence which was reduced into writing by him. Exh. PA is
    the statement given by her and Exh. PA/2 is the FIR prepared
    by him.

B        12. The learned counsel appearing for the convicted
    appellants contended that PW1 Balwinder Kaur had not named
    the accused persons in her complaint and has only stated that
    two assailants after killing her son ran away from the place of
    occurrence and as per the prosecution case accused Charanjit
C   Singh was working as driver with accused Jugraj Singh and he
    was known to PW1 Balwinder Kaur and still she has not
    disclosed his name in her complaint and there was no
    identification parade conducted and they have been falsely
    implicated in the case. Few years before the occurrence
    Satnam Singh was doing business with his cousin brother
D   accused Jugraj Singh and due to misunderstanding separated
    from him. It is when they were working in partnership, accused
    Charanjit Singh was working under them. In this context it is
    pertinent to note the testimony of the investigating officer PW
    23 S.I. Gorpreet Singh. According to him he arrested accused
E   Charanjeet Singh and Surjit Singh in the presence of PW1
    Balwinder Kaur. PWs 1 and 2 have also identified both of them
    as assailants during the.trial in the court. In such circumstances
    the omission to mention their names in the complaint does not
    affect the prosecution case and there is no doubt about the
F   identity of the said accused.

      13. There is yet another clinching evidence against the said
  a9cused which corroborates the testimonies of the eye-
  witnesses. The assailants had taken tea in the house of
  Satnam Singh few minutes before the occurrence. The
G Investigating Officer after registering the case proceeded to the
  house of Satnam Singh and solicited the services of Surinder
  Singh, finger print expert through the control room. PW6
  Surindet Singh reached the place at 9.00 A.M. and found two
  glass tumblers lying on the table smeared with tea and
H
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGGA SINGH                      513
               [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
according to him he applied the grey powder on the said             A
tumblers and raised the finger prints in it and encircled those
places of finger prints and put his initials thereon readable as
S. Singh and the date as 10.11.2002 in it and prepared sealed
parcel by putting them in wooden box duly nailed and handed
it over to the investigating officer for onward transmission to     B
finger print bureau. The sealed parcel was sent through PW15
Constable Anish Kumar to the finger print bureau. PW 25
Subhash Chander, finger print expert .has testified that he
received the sealed parcel with the seal 'SS' through Anish
 Kumar PW15 and on opening he found two glass tumblers              c
which contained already developed flhger impressions and he
 prepared the photographs of those finger impressions. It is his
further testimony that he received specimen 10 digits finger
 impression of the two hands in respect of Charanjit Singh as
well as another specimen 10 digits finger impression in respect     0
 of accused Surjit Singh and made a comparison and prepared
 Exh.PW25/A report. As per report, the questioned finger
 impressions, Mark - A/1 and B/1 and specimen finger
 impressions A/A/1 and B/B/1 of Charanjit Singh were found to
 be similar. Similarly, questioned finger impressions C/1, D/1      E
 and E/1 and specimen finger impressions of Surjit Singh CIC/
 1, D/D/1 and E/E/1 were also found to be similar.

     14. The learned counsel appearing for the convicted
appellants contended that both the said accused were made
to hold glass-tumblers while they were in police custody and        F
thereafter the finger prints were taken and it is only to falsely
implicate them in the case. It is her further contention that the
specimen finger impressions were not taken before the
Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of
Prisoners Act, and it is unsafe to accept the evidence led in       G
this regard. She placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in .Mohd. Aman and another vs. State of Rajasthan ((1997)
10 sec 44].

     15. Both the above contentions are devoid of merit. As
                                                                    H
    514      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014] 12 S.C.R.


A already seen on the direction of the investigating officer, finger
  print expert PW6 Surinder Singh reached the occurrence place
  at 9.00 A.M. on the occurrence day itself and raised the finger
  impressions on the two glass tumblers and duly packed them
  with his seal and date and handed over the same to the
B investigating officer for onward transmission to the finger print
  bureau. The seal was found to be intact by PW25 finger print
  expert who opened it for examination. Exh.PW25/G is the 10.
  digits finger impressio!1 of accused Charanjit Singh. It contains
  the signature of Judicial Magistrate,' First Class, Ludhiana with
c his seal and date. Exh. PW25/H is 10 digits finger impression
  of accus.ed Surjit Singh. lt"also contains the signature of Judicial
  Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana with his seal and date. In fact
  the word .'attested' is put by the Magistrate while putting his
  signature in the said documents. In the facts of the case in
  which the decision cited supra arose the specimen finger prints
0
  of the accused were never taken before or under the order of
  a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification
  of Prisoners Aci and in such circumstances this Coult held that
  it is unsafe to accept the said evidence. As already seen in the
E present case the specimen finger print impression have been
  taken in the presence of Judicial Magistrate and there is no
  room for any suspicion as to its bonafide.

        16; Yet another contention was raised on behalf of the
  convicted appellants that the presence of PWs 1 and 2 in their
F house on the occurrence day is doubtful since they would have
  gone far away to village Landey for attending the marriage of
  daughter of Satnam Singh's maternal uncle. There is evidence
  to show that the said marriage was scheduled on that day in
  the village . It does not mean ·that PWs 1 and 2 had left for the
G village one or two days prior to the marriage. On the contrary
  PWS 1 and 2 have specifically denied such a suggestion put
  to them in cross-examination. Further, there is also no evidence
  let in by the defence to show that both of them had gone to the
  village the previous day of the marriage. Hence this contention
H is also liable to be rejected. The presence of PWs 1 and 2
        STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGGA SINGH                        515
               [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
being the family members in the house is natural and the             A
occurrence had taken place in the early morning hours. When
Satnam Singh took out his scooter, his mother and wife came
to close the door. and at that time they happened to witness the
occurrence. Their testimonies are cogent, natural and
trustworthy. Moreover, we do not find any material discrepancy       B
in their testimonies and they are credible witnesses. The Courts
below have rightly relied on their testim<;mies and the conviction
and sentence imposed on the convicted appellants does not
call for any interference.

      17. Insofar as the implication of other accused is             C
concerned the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW9
Sukhwinder Singh cousin of Satnam Singh before whom
accused Ranjit Singh is alleged to have made extra judicial
confession. As rightly held by the High Court Sukhwinder Singh
is not a person of any authority to help the said accused to get     D
any assistance from him by confessing the crime and in the
absence of any corroboration, his testimony with regard to extra
judicial confession cannot be relied on. The presence of PW3
Shamsher Singh at the occurrence place as claimed by him is
also doubtful on account of testimony of PW4 Surjit Singh.           E
According to PW4 Surjit Singh he reached the occurrence
place and thereafter informed PW3 Shamsher Singh who was
present at village Samalsar about the occurrence and then
PW3 Shamsher Singh reached the place of occurrence.
Moreover in the inquest report the presence of Shamsher Singh        F
is not recorded. Therefore his presence at the time of
occurrence is not proved. There is also no evidence to prove
that the accused had entered into conspiracy in carrying out the
act of committing murder of Satnam Singh. On a proper
appreciation of evidence the High Court had given the benefit        G
of doubt to 5 of.the accused persons by acquitting them and
no interference is called for.

     18. In the result all the criminal appeals are dismissed. The
bail granted to the appellant/accused Surjit Singh in Criminal
                                                                     H
   516       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2014) 12 S.C.R.


A Appeal no. 2328 of 2009 shall be cancelled and he is directed
  to surrender before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana
  to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which the learned
  Additional Sessions Judge is requested to take him into
  custody and send him to jail to serve his left over sentence.
B
   Kalpana K. Tripathy                         Appeals dismissed.