Bachittar Singh And Another vs State (Delhi Administration)
1991 Latest Caselaw 154 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh. J.

1. Hominibus plenum, amices vacuum (full of men, empty of friends) rings true of House No. 207/15, Parkash Mohalla. Garhi. Lajpat Nagar and some of its residents. Karam Singh is its owner. He lives in the ground floor with his wife Resham Kaur and son Tarlochan Singh. His eldest son Bachittar Singh lived with his family on the first floor, while Gurpal Singh, the other son sired by him, had gone to Dubai to dig gold. His wife's name is Ravinder Kaur. At the ripe age of sixty-four and with grown up children well-settled in their avocations, one expects a life of contentment with an aura of sang froid. However, for Karam Singh it must have been a dream shattered. We find him in trouble a capite ad calcem. He was at daggers drawn with Bachittar Singh. Love had given way to acrimony. There were frequent quarrels, complaints to the police and even litigation. The bone of contention was the first floor. Whereas Karam Singh wanted Bachittar Singh to vacate it, Bachittar Singh would not oblige. His wife's brother Santokh Singh was always available at his elbow to lend him a helping hand. As per the prosecution he was there on August 8, 1984 also when yet another quarrel had taken place and Santokh Singh had refused to remain mute spectator. Resham Kaur was the victim. She was insulted and beaten. None could probably foresee that the incident had dug the grave which was to take into its icy embrace Gurpal Singh hardly after a little more than two months, that is, on October 22, 1984. Gurpal Singh came from Dubai on October 12, and landed in his father's house, ironically to enjoy three months holidays. On October 22, 1984 at 7.30 p.m. Gurpal Singh asked Santokh Singh as to why he had beaten his mother Resham Kaur on August the 8th. This sparked off an exchange of abuses between the two. Unfortunately, the things did not rest there. Santokh Singh rushed upstairs and into the flat of Bachittar Singh only to return after a short while. This time he was accompanied by Bachittar Singh. Both were raising lalkaras. Santokh Singh secured Gurpal Singh while Bachittar Singh took out a sharp edged object from his right dab and stabbed him thrice. Resham Kaur tried to intervene but she too was injured. Soon thereafter Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh made good their escape. Gurpal Singh was taken to the hospital by his parents where he was declared dead. On examination of his mortal remains, Dr. G. K. Chaubay (PW 19) noticed three incised wounds. The first was 1.9 cm x 0.5 cm and was located 17 cm below left shoulder going deep into upper lobe of left lung. Its approximate depth was 7 cm. The second was on the left chest 2 cm below the left nipple, 9 cm lateral to midline, in the mid clavicular line. Its size was 2 x 1 cm. It had gone deep into the heart cavity. The third was 2 x 1 cm. It was 14.5 cm below the right nipple and had gone upward and medially to the 6th rib. Its depth from wound to the 6th rib was 5 cm. All these injuries were ante mortem. They were found to have been caused by some sharp edged weapon. It was opined (Ex. PW/19/A) that the death was due to injuries No. 1 and 2 which were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature, individually as well as collectively.

2. This, then, is the sum mum bonum of the prosecution case. However, a few more things need to be noticed at this stage. Admittedly Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh had also reached the hospital where they too, like Resham Kaur, were medically examined. Their medico legal reports are. Exhibits PW-18/C, PW-18/D, and PW-18/B respectively. While Bachittar Singh was found to have a simple blunt injury on his left thumb, Santokh Singh had a cut injury 1" x 1/2" on his left thumb. Coming to Resham Kaur, she was found to have a superficial abrasion on the upper part of her abdomen.

3. Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh have their own version. They have painted Karam Singh in the darkest hues. If they are to be believed, Karam Singh is a man endowed with criminal propensities a womaniser, a previous convict, quarrelsome, and greedy. Both of them say that it was actually Karam Singh who had committed the murder. It is claimed that Gurpal Singh wanted to construct his factory and had demanded the money advanced by him to his father and it was because of this that he was murdered. As per them they had come to the ground floor from the flat on the first floor on hearing the shrieks of Ravinder Kaur wife of Gurpal Singh and had seen Karam Singh in the room of Gurpal Singh armed with a dagger. Bachittar Singh says (under S. 313, Cr.P.C.) that his mother had also entered the room Along with them and was given a push by Karam Singh causing injury to her and that he and Santokh Singh too had sustained injuries at the hands of Karam Singh while trying to apprehend him. They claim that they were the persons who had taken Gurpal Singh to the hospital and that Karam Singh had reached there of his own, and had got them falsely implicated.

4. The prosecution has examined Karam Singh, his wife Resham Kaur, their son Tarlochan Singh and Ravinder Kaur widow of Gurpal Singh as the alleged eye witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 11 respectively).

5. As per Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh the occurrence was witnessed by Ravinder Kaur (P.W. 11) and Dalip Singh. As would be borne out from above. It is also their case that Resham Kaur (P.W. 3) too had entered the room and was a witness to part of the scene. Who is this Dalip Singh ? He has not been examined. He died during the trial. He was the father of Karam Singh and thus grand father of the deceased and Bachittar Singh appellant. The case of the defense is that Dalip Singh had moved an application before the trial court and had sworn an affidavit too alleging that it was actually Karam Singh who had perpetrated the crime (Ex. DW 1/A and DW 2/B). They have examined Dilbagh Singh, Sandeep Rai, Advocate and Promila Aggarwal (DWs 1, 2 and 3 respectively). While the first witness is the brother of Karam Singh, the second is an advocate who had prepared the above-mentioned application and affidavit. The third is an Oath Commissioner who had attested the affidavit Ex. DW 2/A on the identification of the deponent by Sandeep Rai, Advocate.

6. The learned trial judge holding the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted Bachittar Singh under section 302 and Santokh Singh under Section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 1000/- each as fine. Needless to say the appellants have found the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence unacceptable. Hence this appeal.

7. Karam Singh, Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh are prosecution's star witnesses. They all claim to have witnessed the occurrence. We find hardly any discordant note in what they have stated. We need not resort to reproduction of their respective statements ad nauseam. It is their main theme which is actually the source of our introductory para. One may read it again. What we left out is that after securing Gurpal Singh, Santokh Singh had exhorted : "Is Ko Kaat de" (murder him) and after the stabbing, he had stated : "Aaja Bachitra Chaliya" (Let's go Bachitra), and secondly, that it was on the basis of the statement of Karam Singh (Ex. PW 1/A) made in the hospital that the formal FIR (Ex. PW 4/B) was recorded. We intentionally left out the said two exhortations attributed to Santokh Singh and we are consciously ignoring the same again. They are the embellishments and improvements made later. They were not there either in Ex. PW 1/A or in statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. During arguments we were asked to discard the evidence of the above-named three witnesses on principally three grounds. It was contended that Karam Singh being the head of the family and Resham Kaur being his wife and under his thumb and Tarlochan Singh being the son, neither Resham Kaur nor Tarlochan could be considered to be independent witnesses and that relations between Karam Singh and Bachittar Singh being extremely strained and Karam Singh being keen to throw him out of the house by hook or crook, no reliance could be placed on him and for that matter on Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh. The second contention was that on August 8, it was Karam Singh who had made an attempt to strangulate the wife of Bachittar Singh and on that count he had been even connected under the Delhi Police Act and as on that day neither Resham Kaur had been abused nor assaulted by Santokh Singh, there was no occasion for Gurpal Singh to lodge a protest with him. The argument was that as Resham Kaur and Santokh Singh figured no where in the incident of August 8, the entire prosecution version regarding the genesis of the incident of October 22 was false. It was lastly contended that actually on October 22 neither Gurpal Singh had lodged any protest with Santokh Singh nor it had resulted in the stabbing as alleged by the three above-named prosecution witnesses, and that actually, and as we have already noticed above, it was Karam Singh who had stabbed Gurpal Singh to death. It may be mentioned that in support of the arguments advanced it was contended that the non-production of evidence regarding the lifting of blood from the court-yard where, as per the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place, was in itself enough to dislodge the prosecution case and to lend support to the defense version that the place of occurrence was actually the bed room of Gurpal Singh as alleged by the defense. In support force was sought to be drawn from the statement of Ravinder Kaur wife of Gurpal Singh and from the affidavit of Dalip Singh besides the statement of DW Dilbagh Singh.

9. Undoubtedly Karam Singh happens to be the husband of Resham Kaur and father of Tarlochan Singh. It is also true that relations between Bachittar Singh and karam Singh were strained. But to say that Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh should be disbelieved on that basis alone is, we feel, too far fetched. How can we forget that Resham Kaur is the mother and Tarlochan Singh happens to be the real brother of Bachittar Singh ? It is significant to note that there is absolutely nothing on the record to show, even obliquely, that Resham Kaur had strained relations with Bachittar Singh or, for that matter, with Santokh Singh. It is thus not possible for us to believe that, merely because her husband stands on the other side of the fence, she would go to the extent of falsely implicating her own son and that too on a charge of murder. We can ill afford to forget that she has already lost a son. The pain and agony of losing a grown up son must have been excruciating. We find ourselves unable to even entertain the thought, what to talk of belief, that in such a situation, a mother would, having not shown any hostility in the past, become an active participant in the sinister and diabolical plot to first falsely implicate her yet another grown up son and then work for his gallows. The same may be said even of Tarlochan Singh. He is the real brother of Bachittar Singh, he is not shown to have ever even uttered a harsh word to Bachittar Singh. Yes, on August 8, 1984 he did have a quarrel with the wife of Bachittar Singh which led to his conviction, along with his father, under the Delhi Police Act. That is the solitary instance. And, that in itself cannot be considered to be sufficient to show that he would go to the extent of falsely implicating his own brother. The presence of Resham Kaur at the scene of occurrence is admitted even by the appellants. As regards Tarlochan Singh, he is a natural witness. His presence is recorded even in the First Information Report. Both have stood by the prosecution version solidly. Both have stood the test of cross-examination and have come out of the ordeal unscathed. We find no reason to discard their evidence.

10. Coming to Karam Singh, undoubtedly, he was inimically drawn towards Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case, their enmity creates no dent in the evidence of Karam Singh. That he was present at the scene of occurrence is proved not only from his own statement but also from the direct evidence of Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh. It also finds support from the statement of Balvinder Singh (PW 12) according to whom Karam Singh had informed him of the occurrence at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., and so also from the medico-legal reports of Resham Kaur and the deceased which show that it was he who had taken them to the hospital. Ravinder Kaur widow of the deceased and even the appellants admit his presence though it is another matter that they claim that it was he who had committed the murder. We shall, of course, be dealing with this version a little later. What is important to note is that he is proved to be present at the scene of occurrence. He has remained firm with his version, and we feel that even a long, tenuous and searching cross-examination has failed to create any dent of any significance. The appellants have attacked his character. An attempt has been made, and which we regard to be too crude and in bad taste, to show that he is a Casanova of sorts. Barring suggestions to that effect, there is nothing of substance to bring home the charge. An attempt has also been made to show that he is a man with criminal propensities and was convicted in a case under section 307. This was in the distant past and then Karam Singh states that he was acquitted in appeal. There is nothing to show that it was not so. Yes he did have strained relations with his son Bachittar Singh. It was so because he wanted him to vacate a portion of the building which he owns. This was resisted by Bachittar Singh and in this resistance he was assisted by his wife's brother Santokh Singh. It was'nt thus a one sided affair. Significantly, there is nothing on the record to show that Karam Singh had ever tried to evict his son with force. To achieve the goal he had taken recourse to civil litigation. Karam Singh cannot thus be treated to be so undesirable as to deserve to be shunned and condemned. Yes, it does appear that on August 8 he was convicted under the Delhi Police Act. We do not know under which provision. Karam Singh says that he too had gone to the Police Station to lodge a report but the same was not recorded. The defense version is that on that day Karam Singh had entered the bed room of Bachittar Singh and had attempted to strangulate his wife. There is no evidence in support. The police report which could throw some light has been kept back. Even the challan under the Delhi Police Act has not been produced. Santokh Singh has said not a word in support of the version in his statement under Section 313. Though Bachittar Singh does state that on 8-8-84 his father had "tried to strangulate" his wife, he leads no evidence in support. The wife of Bachittar Singh was a material witness. But then, the defense has chosen not to examine her. Mere suggestions in the cross-examination when vehemently denied would not constitute evidence. It is in the statement of Resham Kaur, that on August 8 her other son Tarlochan Singh, had an altercation with the wife of Bachittar Singh. That it was a quarrel between Tarlochan Singh and the wife of Bachittar Singh, finds support from the statement of Karam Singh and Tarlochan Singh also. It is under these circumstances that we are inclined to hold that the defense version with regard to the incident of August 8 cannot be accepted and that rather it stands proved that the cause of that incident was a quarrel between Tarlochan Singh and the wife of Bachittar Singh in which Santokh Singh had abused and assaulted Resham Kaur. Thus yet another attempt to tarnish Karam Singh fails. And, as we shall show a little later, even the attempt to implicate him in the murder of his son is nothing but a sinister move to corner hapless, haggard and harassed sixty four years old unfortunate father. The attempt to tarnish his image and to show that here is a person who is unworthy of reliance, fails to take even wings. Of course, relations between him and the appellants being strained, we are looking into the evidence and examining it with a more cautious eye, and the more we have gone through his statement the more we have felt convinced that it deserves to be accepted. And, what is more, it gets unstinted support on all material particulars from the statements of Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh.

11. It was argued, and with great vehemence that at the earliest possible opportunity Karam Singh had not implicated the appellants and in this respect our attention was drawn to the statement of Balvinder Singh (PW 12) and to the entries in the medico-legal reports of Gurpal Singh and Resham Kaur (Ex. PW 18/A and PW 18/B respectively). It is true that as per Balvinder Singh when on October 22, Karam Singh came to him at 7 or 7.30 p.m. to inform about the occurrence he had not named the assailants and had rather stated that "somebody" had run away "after inflicting knife injury to her son." It is also true that in the medico-legal report of Gurpal Singh (Ex PW 18/A) he is reported to have been "stabbed by somebody" and in the medico legal report of Resham Kaur (Ex. PW 18/B) she is alleged to have been "involved in a quarrel at about 7-30 p.m." What does one make out of this evidence ?

12. Tarlochan Singh has stated that it was he who had gone to Balvinder Singh and had given the information. Even if it be assumed that it was actually Karam Singh who had contacted Balwinder Singh, his statement that Karam Singh had informed him that "somebody" had inflicted this knife injuries is not worthy of reliance. It is in contradiction to the information which Balwinder Singh actually gave to the police. In this respect we may peruse the statement of S.I. Dev Raj (PW 2). On October 22, he was posted at the Police Control Room. As per him at 7.52 p.m. intimation was received from Balwinder that son of Karam Singh had been stabbed "by his relation and after so stabbing the culprit had fled away." The information was entered into the Daily Diary. Its copy is Ex. PW 2 A. There also the expression used is "the relative". The distinction between "somebody" and "the relative" is too obvious and takes away the sting out of the argument advanced. Of course, it may still be open to the appellants to say that the nature of relationship had not been disclosed, but then we would not like to be a party to such hair splitting.

13. Coming to the medico-legal reports, it is significant to note that the doctors who had recorded the reports have not been examined and it is nowhere mentioned as to who actually had given the information leading to the entries in question. This assumes importance as Karam Singh has stated, in clear and unambiguous terms, that he did not have any talk with the doctor. What is of further significance is that as per Resham Kaur she had informed the doctor that Bachittar Singh was the assailant and that the weapon of offence was a churri. This being the state of evidence we are not inclined to make much out of the entries in the medico-legal reports.

14. It was next argued that as the prosecution had not led any credible evidence with regard to the lifting of blood from the courtyard and as it had failed to get the blood samples analysed from the CFSL therefore, its version that the occurrence had taken place in the courtyard must be discarded and the version of the appellants that the stabbing had actually taken place in the bed room of the deceased deserved to be accepted. In support our attention was drawn to Kadir v. The State, 1986 (2) Crimes 667 : (1987 Cri LJ 101), a Division Bench judgment of this court to which one of us (Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.) was a party, and to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, . We shall be referring to these judgments a little later again. Let us first analyze the evidence on the point. There are two police officials who have stated that they had found blood lying in the courtyard. They are ASI Samey Singh and H.C. Ami Chand (P.Ws. 9 and 21 respectively). While ASI Samey Singh had found blood lying at two three places in the compound, the Head Constable has deposed that he had found blood lying "at a number of places at the spot and that the same had been lifted by the Investigating Officer. It is also in his statement that the Investigating Officer SI Harcharan Verma had reached the spot before him. Significantly, SI Harcharan Verma (PW 20) has stated that he had not found even a drop of blood at the spot although he had inspected the spot minutely with the help of the Crime team "to detect blood", and that he had inspected all the rooms on the ground floor. The Station House Officer, Inspector Ombir Singh (P.W. 22) who too had visited the spot has also not spoken of any blood at the spot or anywhere else. SI Harcharan Verma (PW 20) had prepared a rough sketch plan (Ex. PW 20/A) with marginal notes in his own handwriting. It is a detailed sketch and what is important to note is that in it also there is no reference to blood having been found anywhere. And even in the plan Ex. PW. 15/A prepared according to scale by SI Davinder Singh (PW 15) there is no reference to blood having been found anywhere. What is of further significance is that as per SI Davinder Singh he had taken the measurements at the pointing out of Karam Singh, Tarlochan Singh. Resham Kaur and Ravinder Kaur. His statement on this aspect of the matter has remained unchallenged in cross-examination. What we are trying to emphasise is that had blood fallen anywhere, Ravinder Kaur, being the widow of the deceased, would at least have been the first person to point it out. It incidentally also falsifies the assertion made by Ravinder Kaur in the witness box that the occurrence had taken place in her bed-room and that blood had fallen there. Of course, we shall be touching it again a little later while dealing with the defense version.

15. Besides what has been noticed above about the controversy regarding blood, we have on the record the statements of Karam Singh, Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh. All the three were the eye witnesses and all of them have stated with one voice that the occurrence had taken place in the courtyard and that no blood had fallen on the ground. As per Karam Singh since Gurpal Singh deceased had fallen on the ground "on his back", blood had not fallen on the ground. Resham Kaur (PW 3) states that though there was bleeding from the injuries, since the deceased had fallen down "with his face upward", the blood was soaked by the Safari suit he was wearing. She has categorically denied the suggestion that there was no blood in the courtyard as the occurrence had not taken place there. Similarly, it is stated by Tarlochan Singh (PW 4) that the deceased had fallen on the ground on his back, that no blood had fallen on the ground and that actually it had "remained on his clothes". The statement of Dr. G. K. Chaubay (PW 19) who conducted the post mortem is also not without significance. He says that there must have been bleeding from the injuries marked by him as 1 and 2 but most of the blood must have collected on the chest cavity and that the third injury was likely to be less bleeding. Thus what we find is that barring the above named two police officers, the remaining evidence comprising of the three eye witnesses, the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer goes to show that no blood had fallen on the ground and significantly this evidence finds support from the sketch plan, the plan prepared according to the scale and from the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem. This being the position we are inclined to hold that the evidence showing that actually no blood had fallen on the ground deserves to be accepted. Even if, for argument's sake, it is accepted that blood had fallen, the evidence is that it had fallen in the courtyard and this in itself supports the prosecution version regarding the place of occurrence.

16. Time now to come into grip with the authorities referred to and relied upon by the appellants. We feel that none of them is of any help to them. In Kadir v. The State (1987 Cri LJ 101 (Delhi)) (supra) also there was, as in the case before us, a dispute about the place of occurrence. However in the said case whereas no blood was found at the place alleged by the prosecution to be the scene of murder, it was actually found at the place which, according to the defense was the scene of crime and samples of blood had been lifted from that spot but were not sent to the CFSL. It was under these circumstances that it was observed that the report of the CFSL could help in establishing the "spot of crime". The case, obviously, is distinguishable on facts. As far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh's case (1976 Cri LJ 1736) (supra) is concerned, it too is distinguishable on facts. In that case the prosecution had not come out with the true version. The eye witnesses were not considered to be worthy of reliance and the genesis and the origin of the occurrence appeared to be shrouded in deep mystery. There were serious omissions and infirmities. It was in the light of these facts and circumstances that the omission on the part of the prosecution to send the blood stained earth found at the place of occurrence for Chemical examination, was adversely commented upon. In the case before us no blood is proved to have been found. In any case, the three eye witnesses namely Karam Singh, Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh have been found by us to be worthy of reliance. We see no inherent improbabilities or serious omissions and infirmities. Under the circumstances, even if it be assumed that there was blood, failure to lead forensic evidence with regard to the same, though unfortunate, would not be fatal. In this we seek to draw force from yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in Raghunandan v. State of U.P. . The relevant portion of para 17 of the report deserves to be reproduced. It is as under :

"We think that a failure of the police to send the blood for Chemical examination in a serious case of murder, such as the one before us, is to be deprecated. In such cases place of occurrence is often disputed. In the instant case, it was actually disputed. However, such an omission need not jeopardise the success of the prosecution case where there is other reliable evidence to fix the scene of occurrence."

We have, as noticed above, sufficient other reliable evidence to fix the scene of occurrence.

17. This much for the blood of the deceased.

18. With a view to breach the bastion raised by the prosecution, it was further argued that the First Information Report could not be taken to have been recorded at the given time and we were asked to hold so on three grounds. Firstly, that the First Information Reports immediately preceding and succeeding the First Information Report of this case were both under section 379 and both the cases were consigned as untraced. It was contended that those First Information Reports were fictitious and were introduced with the sole object to keep the FIR Register open. Secondly, it was argued that in the Daily Diary report No. 14-A dated October 22 (Ex. PW 4/C), the substance of the Information was not recorded thereby casting grave doubts on the First Information Report. The last contention was that the copy of the First Information was not sent to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with due promptitude. We are not impressed. The mere fact that the immediately preceding and succeeding First Information Reports related to theft cases and those cases were closed as untraced would not, in the absence of any material to show that they were falsely and intentionally introduced, make any difference. Coming to the Daily Diary No. 14-A, undoubtedly this court has repeatedly laid emphasis on the desirability of the recording of the substance. But then, every case has to be looked into keeping in view its own facts and circumstances. In the present case, the prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence to prove the recording of the statement of Karam Singh (Ex. PW 1/A) on October 22, the making of the endorsement and its dispatch to the Police Station through H. C. Ami Chand (P.W. 21) and the prompt recording of the formal First Information Report. True, in the Daily Diary No. 14-A the substance of the Information is not recorded in the manner we would have wished it to be recorded, but it does refer to the endorsement made by the Investigating Officer S.I. Harcharan Verma "containing the statement of Sh. Karam Singh and its receipt through H.C. Ami Chand. It further mentions that the "contents" reveal the commission of an offence under section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It also speaks of the sending of the Special Report through special messenger Constable Hawa Singh, and this finds support from the statement of Constable Hawa Singh who has entered into the witness-box as PW 6. This being the position, we are not inclined to throw out the First Information Report merely on the basis of this objection. Coming to the last contention, we have already referred to the Daily Diary No. 14-A (Ex PW. 4/C) which speaks of the sending of the Special Report through Constable Hawa Singh. It is in the statement of Constable Hawa Singh (PW 6) that he was handed over the Special Report by the Duty Officer on October 22, at 11 p.m. and that he had delivered the same to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at his residence the same night at 1 a.m. We see absolutely no reason to disbelieve this evidence. Where then is the delay ? Here is a case where the First Information Report was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that Report. We find no infirmity. In such a case even improper and objectionable delayed receipt of Special Report by the Magistrate cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. This is the dictum of the Supreme Court (See Pala Singh v. State of Punjab, ; State of U.P. v. Gokaran, ).

19. We have already noticed above the defense raised by the appellants and as it was argued that the evidence led in support of the defense version was more than sufficient to prove that the actual culprit was none other but Karam Singh and as, in support, reliance was chiefly placed upon the statement of Ravinder Kaur (PW 11), the widow of the deceased and upon the application moved by Dalip Singh, father of Karam Singh before the trial court and so also on the statement of Dilbag Singh (DW-1) brother of Karam Singh, it is time to examine its nuts and bolts to see as to how far it has succeeded, if at all in creating any dent in the prosecution version.

20. Undoubtedly Ravinder Kaur has stated that on October 22, 1984 at about 7-30 p.m. Karam Singh had come to her bed-room and after scolding her had given her a push and as, in the meantime, her husband Gurpal Singh too had entered the room and had protested against the behavior of his father, Karam Singh had taken out a small Kirpan and had inflicted two-three injuries to her husband. It is also in her statement that Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh had tried to apprehend Karam Singh and had even tried to snatch Kirpan from him and while doing so Santokh Singh had received injuries on his hand. It is further in her statement that her father-in-law Karam Singh had given a threat that in case any one spoke anything against him he too would be killed like Gurpal Singh and that : "then we all including my father-in-law and mother-in-law went to AIIMS in two taxis taking my husband in injured condition." Her statement also goes to show that she had returned to her house the same night.

21. Does the statement of Ravinder Kaur lead the prosecution cow to another barn ? The answer is in the negative. We are rejecting her statement principally for the following reasons : (a) She never gave that version to the police in her statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (b) Although she admits that the police had come in the hospital and although it is in evidence that it had remained in the house of Karam Singh till almost the dawn of the next day, she never told it that it was Karam Singh who had done her husband to death; (c) it is not possible for us to believe that immediately after the stabbing of her husband allegedly by Karam Singh she would have accompanied him and her mother-in-law to the hospital. Normally in such a situation the widow would refuse to accompany the killer of her husband and instead of meekly accompanying him would, on the very first opportunity, proclaim as to who the actual killer was; (d) Having come to know that Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh had been arrested in connection with the murder of her husband and, if she is to be believed, falsely too, she would normally have lodged her protest. She did nothing of the sort; (e) As per Sub-Inspector Davinder Singh, he had prepared the site plan according to the scale on the instructions of Ravinder Kaur as well. Had her husband been killed by Karam Singh and that too inside her bed-room, she would have informed Davinder Singh about it and would not have toed the line of the prosecution; (f) About one month after the death of her husband she had lodged a report with the police relating to her house-hold articles. It was a complaint against Karam Singh. If she could then lodge a report with the police with regard to her house-hold articles, what prevented her from reporting even at that stage that Karam Singh was the real culprit and that Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh were as innocent as a lamb ?; (g) She admits that she had quarrel with her father-in-law and on that score the police had come to the house. What prevented her, even at that stage, to come out with her version ?; (h) Admittedly she has been living with her parents at Faridabad since after a month of the death of her husband. There could possibly thus be no fear or apprehension from Karam Singh from that period onwards. Why then all this sphinx-like silence over her version ?; (1) On March 22, 1986 when she was in the witness-box she stated that till that date she had not informed any one about the coming into her bed room of her father-in-law and about the stabbing of her husband by him. Why ? Is her entire conduct not unnatural ?; and (j) It is writ large from her statement that she is having strained relations with her father-in-law since after the death of her husband.

22. Time now to deal with Dalip Singh. Undoubtedly Ravinder Kaur states that Dalip Singh was present in the house at the time of the occurrence. She made no such statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In any case, she has been found by us to be a person totally unreliable as a witness. Barring her statement there is no evidence on the record to show that at the relevant time Dalip Singh was living in the house of Karam Singh or that he was present at the time of occurrence. Rather from the evidence of the other eye witnesses it is clearly borne out that Dalip Singh was not living during those days in the house of Karam Singh and was nowhere near the scene of occurrence. We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the other eye witnesses on this aspect of the matter and as such are inclined to hold that Dalip Singh was actually neither living there nor was present at the scene of occurrence. Of course Dalip Singh in his affidavit and application does claim to be a witness to the occurrence and to be residing in the house of Karam Singh at the relevant time. In view of the convincing and cogent evidence of Karam Singh, Resham Kaur and Tarlochan Singh on the point, we are not prepared to believe him. Even otherwise had he been present he too would have ordinarily gone to the hospital. Admittedly he did not go there. Even the police officers who went to the hospital and then to the place of occurrence do not speak of his presence. Significantly even Ravinder Kaur in her examination-in-chief does not state that Dalip Singh was present in her bed room or that he had witnessed the occurrence or had tried to intervene in any manner. If she could speak of the presence of Santokh Singh. Bachittar Singh and Resham Kaur, what prevented her from speaking about his presence too ? It is only in the cross-examination on a suggestion by the defense that she for the first time, speaks of his presence. In any case, if Dalip Singh was really present and had witnessed the occurrence and had seen his own son Karam Singh falsely implicating Bachittar Singh and Santokh Singh, what prevented him from contacting the police soon thereafter and informing it as to what had actually transpired ? The occurrence had taken place, as already noticed above, on October 22, 1984 at about 7-30 p.m. or so. Immediately thereafter the deceased had been taken to the hospital and as we know Ravinder Kaur, Karam Singh, Resham Kaur, Tarlochan Singh and the appellants had gone to the hospital, though not together. In their absence the police had come to the house of Karam Singh. Thus there was no impediment in the way of Dalip Singh to talk to the police officers and give his own version. There is nothing on the record to show that either he was present or that he did make any such statement. Significantly even in his affidavit and the application moved before the trial Court he nowhere asserts that he had contacted the police at any stage and had given his own version. There is absolutely no explanation for his keeping the lips sealed. It was only after the lapse of more than a year that the affidavit was sworn and the application was prepared. The verification of the affidavit is of October, 1985. The exact date is not mentioned. It was attested by the Oath Commissioner on October 29, 1985. The application is dated October 29, 1985. It appears that the application was moved before the trial court on November 8, 1985, that is, more than a year since the murder. In his affidavit and application he shows great concern for the accused. Where was he on the day of murder ? Where was he during the investigation ? And where was he before November 8, 1985 ? We do not propose to loose much breath on it. We reject it as false. We reject it as an afterthought. We reject it as a crude attempt to blur the truth.

23. A few words on Dilbagh Singh. As per him, on 1st or 2nd of May, 1986 his father had told him that Karam Singh had got the appellants falsely implicated. This evidence, in view of what has been discussed by us while dealing with Dalip Singh is not worth even a dice. In any case, why did he too keep quiet ? Admittedly, he had moved an application against Karam Singh. It was addressed to the police and was dated July 7, 1986. What prevented him from mentioning therein that the appellants were innocent and had been framed ? We regard it as yet another vociferous filibustering of a rump ending ultimately in a whimper.

24. We are, in view of what has been discussed above, firmly of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the defense set up by the appellants is palpably false.

25. Before dropping the curtain, we need to deal with the argument which revolves around Santokh Singh only. It was contended that there being no sharing of common intention and Santokh Singh having no means to know that Bachittar Singh was armed with a sharp-edged weapon, he could not be held guilty with the help of S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We find ourselves unable to subscribe to this view. Let us recapitulate the sequence of events again. First Gurpal Singh lodged his protest over the incident of October 8. It led to an exchange of hot words and abuses between him and Santokh Singh. Santokh Singh then rushed upstairs while still hurling abuses, and entered the room of Bachittar Singh. He remained inside for a few minutes and then came out with Bachittar Singh. Obviously, it was during those few minutes inside the room that Santokh Singh had briefed and provoked Backittar Singh to act and obviously it must have been then and under the very nose of Santokh Singh that Bachittar Singh would have armed himself with a dagger. After having sufficient time to themselves to pause, consider, and deliberate they came out not silently but by raising Lalkaras. After climbing down the stairs, first Santokh Singh secured the deceased and then and then only Bachittar Singh stabbed the deceased. He stabbed him not once, not twice but thrice. When Resham Kaur tried to intervene, even she was hurt. And, significantly, after stabbing, both the accused went away together and remained together till their arrest. These being the facts and circumstances, the trial court was fully justified in applying S. 34 of the I.P.C.

26. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.

27. Appeal dismissed.