Delhi High Court

Satpal Singh vs State on 6 January, 2010

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

i.12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       CRL.A. 658/2007

%                              Date of Decision: 6th January, 2010

        SATPAL SINGH                   ..... Appellant
                  Through:     Mr.Naveen Chawla, Advocate

                               versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI           ..... Respondent
                 Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                   Yes
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                             Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

16.8.2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC. The person murdered was

Satbir Singh @ Tejpal, the younger brother of the appellant.

The appellant has also been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC. The said offence is related

to the injury caused to Pankaj Tomar PW-4 who is the son of

the appellant.

2. In sustaining the conviction for the two offences,

the learned Trial Judge has relied upon the testimony of Bimla

PW-5, the wife of the deceased; Nitin PW-9, the son of the

deceased; Sanjiv PW-8 and Rajiv PW-11, both sons of the

appellant; and Pankaj PW-4.

3. With reference to the report Ex.PW-26/A of the

ballistic expert and with further reference to a bullet recovered

from the body of deceased Satbir after the post-mortem, as

recorded in the seizure memo Ex.PW-17/A, and another bullet

recovered from the left side chest of Pankaj PW-4 as recorded

in the seizure memo Ex.PW-7/A and the seizure of a revolver

reflected in the memo Ex.PW-5/C; since the ballistic report was

that the two bullets aforenoted were fired from the firearm

(revolver) recovered from the appellant at the time of his

arrest, it has been held that it stands proved that the two

bullets were fired from the licensed firearm belonging to the

appellant.

4. To put it pithily, the conviction of the appellant has

been sustained with reference to the testimony of 5 eye

witnesses; 3 of whom are the sons of the appellant as also the

recovery of the weapon of offence.

5. It is apparent that the fate of the appellant would

depend whether there are blemishes in the testimony of the

eye witnesses and whether there is any blemish in the

recovery of the firearm or in the two bullets which were linked

to the firearm or the report of the ballistic expert.

6. With reference to the firearm used, we may note

that the firearm is a licensed revolver and in reference to

question No.18 when the incriminating circumstances were put

to the appellant, he admitted that the firearm in question was

recovered from his person at the time he was arrested and

that the said firearm was a licensed firearm in his name.

7. We may note that the report Ex.PW-26/A of the

ballistic expert has been proved through the testimony of

Sh.K.C.Varshney Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) FSL Rohini

who appeared as PW-26.

8. In his testimony and as also the report Ex.PW-26/A,

Sh.K.C.Varshney has held that the two bullets EB-1 and EB-2

recovered from the body of Pankaj PW-4 and the deceased

respectively were fired from the revolver sent for opinion

(recovered from the person of the appellant) with reference to

the striation marks on the two bullets in comparison with the

test fired bullets from the revolver in question. It may be

noted that the solitary question put to the witness in cross

examination is: "Have you noted any mark/point on the

revolver in question about the prior firing before your

examination?" The answer is „No‟.

9. It is apparent that no serious cross examination has

been conducted with reference to the striation marks on the

suspect bullets and the test fired bullets.

10. Thus, we may safely conclude that it stands

established that Satbir as also Pankaj were fired upon through

the licensed revolver of the appellant.

11. Being the license holder of the firearm in question,

it was the duty of the appellant to have explained as to under

what circumstances the licensed firearm belonging to him was

used. He having not done so, the conclusion is obvious. The

appellant must suffer the consequences of the use of the

licensed firearm.

12. With reference to the testimony of Sanjeev and

Rajiv, the two sons of the appellant, we note that both of them

have deposed that the deceased, their uncle, was residing on

the ground floor of House No.33, Gali No.1B, Durga Puri

Extension, Shahdara, Delhi and they were residing on the first

floor. At about 10:45 PM they heard a cracker sound which

attracted them to look down and they saw their father leaving

the ground floor of the house. Whereas Sanjeev has deposed

that their father was carrying a revolver in his hand, Rajiv has

simply deposed of seeing his father leave the ground floor of

the house. Rajiv has further deposed that he asked his father

as to where he had been, to which the response was "Maar

Aaya".

13. It thus stand established through the testimony of

the two sons of the appellant that the appellant was seen with

a firearm coming out of the house of the deceased soon after

the fatal shot was fired.

14. Pankaj PW-4, the third son of the appellant has

deposed that at around 10:45 PM he received a telephonic call

from his brother Sanjeev who told him that their father had

fired a shot at their uncle Satbir Singh. He deposed that when

he returned home he saw his father sitting on the first floor of

the house and the moment his father saw him his father fired a

shot at him hitting him on the left side of the chest.

15. Bimla PW-5, the wife of the deceased at whose

instance the complaint Ex.PW-5/A was registered resulting in

the registration of the FIR, has deposed as PW-5. She has

deposed that there was a dispute between the two brothers

with reference to the joint property to be partitioned and that

at 10:45 PM on the day of the incident the appellant fired at

her husband. Nitin PW-9, son of Bimla has also deposed pari

materia with his mother Bimla PW-5.

16. Having perused the testimony of 5 eye witnesses

we find no blemish in their testimony. It has to be noted that 3

eye witnesses are none else other than the sons of the

appellant.

17. It is apparent that the appellant fired a fatal shot at

his brother and also took a shot at his son Pankaj PW-4; killing

the former and grievously injuring the later.

18. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-6/M of the deceased

establishes that the deceased died as the result of firearm

injury. The MLC Ex.PW-1/B of Pankaj establishes that Pankaj

was grievously injured with a firearm shot.

19. Why did the appellant commit the acts in question?

The answer has emerged through the testimony of Bimla who

has stated that the appellant and his brother i.e. the deceased

had a fight with respect to division of joint property.

20. Before concluding we may note that the appellant

was apprehended from the first floor of his house as recorded

in the arrest memo Ex.PW-12/C. He made no attempt to flee.

The reason why he probably made no attempt to flee is the

fact that he was intoxicated to such an extent that he had lost

all senses of rationality. In response to question No.30 when

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that at the time

of the incident he was sleeping after consuming a large

quantity of alcohol and that he did not know what had

happened in his house.

21. It is apparent that the appellant after consuming

excessive alcohol, lost sense of balance and rationality

resulting in the acts of indiscriminate firing on his brother and

on his own son.

22. Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code reads as

under:-

"86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated

- In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."

23. The appellant having admitted being self-

intoxicated has to be attributed with the same knowledge as

he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.

24. We concur with the finding of guilt returned by the

learned Trial Judge pertaining to the two offences of which the

appellant was charged of i.e. the offence of murdering his

younger brother and the offence of attempting to murder his

own son Pankaj PW-4.

25. We find no merit in the appeal.

26. The appeal is dismissed.

27. Since the appellant is in jail, a copy of this order be

sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for being made