Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 18714 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaswinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2024

Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal

Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138405-DB




CRA-D-268-DB-2014                             1

341
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                      CRA-D-268-DB-2014
                                      Date of Decision: 22.10.2024


JASWINDER SINGH                                     .....APPELLANT
                                   VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB                                      ....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:    Mr. Jasbir Mor, Legal Aid Counsel
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                       ****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J (ORAL)

[1]. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated

13.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2023 whereby the appellant has

been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

[2]. It is a case of the prosecution that the complainant Ashok Pal

(PW-10) was travelling about 50 yards behind his son and when they were

bringing fodder on bicycle, he saw the appellant push his son due to which, he

fell from cycle and the appellant gave him 2-3 datar blows; chopping off the

neck of his son (deceased). He raised alarm, people gathered there and nabbed

the appellant. The incident was immediately reported to the police and an FIR

was registered within an hour. The appellant was arrested on the same day and

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138405-DB

the blood-stained datar recovered from his possession was sent for FSL

examination.

[3]. The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses to prove its case.

PW-1 Lal Singh (MHC) stated that in his presence, the IO had duly sealed the

parcels of the items which formed the part of case property, PW-2 ASI

Bhupinder Singh, had accompanied the Investigating Officer to the place of

occurrence and witnessed various memos including the recovery of blood-

stained datar, PW-3 Balbir Singh, Sarpanch had come to the spot after

commission of the offence and saw headless body of the deceased, PW-4 Dr.

Balwinder Kumar had conducted the postmortem of the deceased, PW-5

Varinder Kumar Patwari had produced copy of Shajra Aks Ex.P22 of the place

of occurrence, PW-6 K.S. Randhawa, DSP was the investigating officer of the

case, PW-7 Naresh Kumar had taken the articles for FSL examination and

ensured that the articles were in intact condition, PW-8 Balwant Singh, from

whom the complainant had purchased the dry fodder, PW-9 Surjit Ram was an

eyewitness to the occurrence and PW-10 Ashok Pal was the father of the

deceased and complainant/eye-witness to the occurrence.

[4]. The prosecution evidence was put to the appellant who denied the

same, but led no evidence in his defence.

[5]. The trial Court after examining the evidence, had held that the

prosecution case against the appellant had been duly established and he was

convicted under Section 302 IPC.

[6]. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case

against the appellant could not be established inasmuch as PW-9 Surjit Ram

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138405-DB

who is stated to be an eyewitness did not support the prosecution case qua the

involvement of the appellant as he had categorically stated that he did not see

the appellant killing the deceased. He further submits that in the alternative,

even if, the prosecution case against the appellant is established, the offence

would fall under Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC as the

appellant had committed the act without any premeditation and the act had

been committed on sudden provocation as the deceased and his father had been

repeatedly told not to cross the fields of the appellant. He has referred to

Mahesh Vs. State of M.P. (1996) 10 SCC 668 in support of his contention.

[7]. Learned State counsel, however, submits that there is sufficient

evidence to bring home the guilt of the appellant in the form of statement of the

complainant and other material witnesses who have duly supported the

prosecution case. The victim was a 10 year old child who was brutally

murdered and therefore, the offence would fall under Section 302 IPC and not

under Section 304 IPC.

[8].        Heard.

[9].        It is manifest that the FIR had been registered at the behest of the

complainant (PW-10) who was also the father of the deceased and eyewitness

to the occurrence. He had duly stated that the deceased was travelling 50 yards

ahead of him when he saw the appellant push his son (deceased), as a result of

which, he fell down from cycle and thereafter, the appellant gave him several

blows with a datar, chopping off the neck of the deceased. He had been cross-

examined at length, but no material inconsistency had emerged therefrom.

PW-3 Balbir Singh, Sarpanch of the village had stated that he had visited the

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138405-DB

place of occurrence immediately as there was a hue and cry and he saw

headless body of the deceased. PW-8 Balwant Singh had stated that he gave his

land to the complainant in exchange of payment and it was therefore,

established that the deceased had been using his land for collection of fodder

and used to pass through the land of the appellant. The ocular version is

supported by the medical evidence presented by PW-4 Dr. Balwinder Kumar

who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased on 19.04.2013

and had found following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

i) Head is separated from the body at the level of neck, cut was oblique fashion, posteriorly involving the hair line from the occipital region running obliquely toward the mid level of neck anteriorly. The margins of were clean inflicted by sharp weapon. On posterior aspect. There were multiple cuts lying adjacent to each other. Soft tissues muscles, bone and wall underlying structure were cut.

ii) Multiple incised wound size varying 2.5 to 5 cms with abression on superior aspect of left shoulder lying adjacent to each other.

iii) Incision wound 4.5 x ½ cm on posterio lateral aspect of neck 3 cm below injury No.1.

iv) Incision wound 4 ½ cm on anterior aspect lying parallel at 4 cm above clavicle.

v) Incision wound 4 ½ cm on lateral aspect at RT thumb.

vi) Incision wound 1 ½ cm present on proximal interphlenged joint at RT middle finger on posterior aspect.

vii) Lacerated wound 2x1 cm on middle of RT finger on posterior aspect.

[10]. The cause of death was opined as haemorrhage and shock due to

infliction of injury to vital structure of neck like oesophagus trachea, spinal

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138405-DB

cord and other structure like blood vessels. Thus, it is apparent that the ocular

version has been corroborated by the medical evidence.

[11]. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis on the

fact that PW-9 who is stated to be an eyewitness did not support the

prosecution case. It is true that PW-9 was cited as an eyewitness, but did not

support the prosecution case and had stated in his examination-in-chief that he

did not see the appellant killing the deceased. However, after being declared

hostile he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in which he had stated

that he was travelling behind his brother and could not see the occurrence

clearly, but he had also stated that he saw the appellant giving 2-3 blows with a

datar on the neck of the deceased. However, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, especially in view of consistent testimony of PW-10 Ashok Pal

complainant/father of the deceased, the statement of PW-9 would not dent the

prosecution evidence, which otherwise is consistent and trustworthy pointing

to the guilt of the appellant.

[12]. We do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel

for the appellant that even if, the prosecution case is taken in toto, the offence

would fall under Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC for the reason

that the deceased was a young boy of 10 years. Reference can be made to

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is not

murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of

passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the instant case, the

appellant has caused three blows to the deceased with a datar which resulted in

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138405-DB

severing of his neck. He had thus, acted in a cruel manner and therefore,

benefit of Exception 4 would not enure. The deceased was unarmed and riding

a bicycle after obtaining fodder, therefore, there was no provocation on his part

which could have compelled the appellant to mercilessly inflict 2-3 datar blows

leading to severing of the neck of the deceased. The judgment of the Supreme

Court in Mahesh case (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable

to the instant case as in that case, the accused therein had given a single blow

with a pharsa while in the instant case, several blows had been caused to the

deceased severing his neck.

[13]. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the

same stands dismissed.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 22.10.2024 Prince

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6