Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


JAGGA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA - CRA-D-95-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 93 (11 January 2006)


Present: Mr.B.S.Bhasaur, Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.


Amar Dutt, J.

Appellant Jagga Singh has filed the present appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 18/19.11.1999.

Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that Bhola Singh PW9 had two sons and two daughters,the eldest son being Charan Singh, two daughters being Baljeet Kaur and Beerpal Kaur and the youngest son being Pappi. On 9.7.l998 around 11.00 A.M. he had taken his wife Nachhatar Kaur to get her fractured arm checked up from Hari Ram, a Desi Hakim of village Neemla.

His daughter Baljeet Kaur was alone in the house while the other children had gone to the fields. When the couple returned to the village at about 3.00 P.M, his wife had remained behind at Bus Stand, Malleka and when he returned to his house, he noticed that Jagga Singh son of Roop Singh of village Konke, District Sangrur, brother-in-law of his brother Mukhtiar Singh was grappling with his daughter Baljeet kaur on a bed in a room of the house. Jagga Singh, who was not wearing his shirt had within sight of Bhola Singh, given a Chhuri(knife) blow on the right side of the chest of Baljeet Kaur and on seeing Bhola Singh, he had got down from the bed and after giving the complainant a push had run away taking the Chhuri along with him. On going near the bed, Bhola Singh saw his daughter lying in a pool of blood. She was removed from the bed and made to lie on a cot which was lying out side and there Baljeet Kaur succumbed to her injuries.

Bhola Singh suspected that Jagga Singh had tried to forcibly rape his daughter and on her offering resistence had killed her by stabbing her with the Chhuri. Bhola Singh had raised an alarm, which attracted Gurdeep Singh PW 10, who had also seen Jagga Singh running with the Chhuri in his hand and therefore, Gurdeep Singh could not apprehend the appellant.

In the meantime, many respectables had also gathered on the spot.

Thereafter, Bhola Singh along with Kartar Singh, Sarpanch, had after leaving Gurdeep Singh near the dead body, gone towards the Police Station, when on the way he met ASI Harbhajan Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Malleka and before him he made a statement Ex.PH, which was completed at 6.30 P.M. and forwarded the same to Police Station Sadar, Sirsa where formal FIR Ex. PH/2 was recorded at 7.40 P.M. The special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at 11.15 P.M. on 10.7.l998.

ASI Harbhajan Singh himself along with other police officials accompanied Bhola Singh to his quarter and there ASI prepared a rough site plan Ex. PM of the place of occurrence as pointed out by the complainant.

He also got photographed the place of occurrence. He prepared inquest report Ex. PB/1 and forwarded the dead body to the General Hospital, Sirsa, with a request Ex. PB for getting post mortem performed thereon. At Bus Stand, Malleka SI Krishan Kumar PW 11, S.H.O, Police Station Sadar, Sirsa met ASI Harbhajan Singh and took over the investigation.

Post-mortem was performed on the dead body by Dr.N.K.Mittal PW1 and Dr.Vanita Jhunthra. The doctors had taken vaginal swabs and after sealing them handed over the same to the police for getting the examination conducted on them by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

On 10.7.l998, when SI Krishan Kumar and other police officials were present at Bus Stand, Malleka alongwith Jagdev Singh, Sarpanch and Major Singh, they received an information that Jagga Singh was present in the fields of Major Singh where he was eventually arrested. During interrogation, he made a disclosure statement regarding his having kept concealed a Chhuri in the field of Major Singh, which was attested by Jagdev Singh and Major Singh and signed by the appellant. Eventually, the appellant led the police party and got recovered Chhuri Ex. P4 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PK/2. The Sub Inspector also prepared the rough site plan Ex. PK/3 pin-pointing the place of recovery.

The vaginal swabs and others articles i.e. Ex.1-a one dirty brown coloured cotton bed sheet, Ex.1-b one dirty full sleeve terrycot Bushirt, Ex 1-c one dirty saffron coloured small size terrycot Bushirt, Ex.2-a one dirty lady's terrycot shirt printed in violet colour on white back ground, Ex.2-b one dirty violet coloured terrycot Salwar, Ex.2-c one dirty faint violet coloured chhuni, Ex.3-two damp brownish cotton wool swabs described as swabs and Ex.4-one all metallic churri(app.22.5 cms) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for analysis and after receipt of the report, challan was put up in the Court against Jagga Singh.

On receipt of the challan, the Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions by which it was exclusively triable where charges were framed against the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 302 IPC as according to the Trial Court, a prima facie case had been made out against Jagga Singh under those sections. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence.

To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.N.K.Mittal as PW1, Buggar Singh, Constable as PW2, Sombir Singh, MHC as PW3, Subhash Chander, Constable as PW4, Tasbir Singh, Constable as PW5, Rameshwar Dass, Photographer as PW6, Amar Singh, SI as PW7, Subhash Chander, Constable as PW8, Bhola Singh as PW9, Gurdeep Singh as PW 10, Krishan Kumar as PW 11 and ASI Harbhajan Singh as PW12.

When the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the appellant were put to him, he denied all of them and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, Baljeet Kaur was having relations with many persons and he had not committed any offence and that he had been involved due to family bickering . He, however, chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonemt for three months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of 250/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hence, the present appeal.

We have heard Mr.B.S.Bhasaur learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

On behalf of the appellant, an effort has been made by his counsel to attack the prosecution version as improbable by asserting that if Bhola Singh and his wife had gone to village Neemal, there is no reason why at the time of their return they should not have come back to their house together. He has assailed this part of the prosecution version with all vehemence at his command and submitted that the appellant has been named as accused in the case on account of family bickering.

We have carefully examined the record with the assistance of the counsel for the parites and find ourselves unable to accept this contention.

The fact that Bhola Singh and his brother Mukhtiar Singh were living near one and other in the village is not disputed. It is further not disputed by the defence that the appellant was the brother-in-law of Mukhtiar Singh, who was staying with his brother-in-law and sister in a house adjoining the residence of Bhola Singh. There is nothing on record to show that sons of Jarnail Singh, namely, Bhola Singh, Mukhtiar singh and Major Singh had any unresolved differences between them, which would disrupt the relationship with each other nor even a suggestion was put to the witnesses that the wife of Mukhtiar Singh was not having cordial relations with either Bhola Singh or his wife or family of Major Singh. It is in this backdrop that the entire episode which took place between Jagga Singh, who was aged 21 years and deceased who was aged 18 years has got to be viewed. The family would naturally be reluctant to name any one who was not actually involved in the killing as the assailant. The family also would be disinclined to involve the brother of sister-in-law unless the incident was true. The fact that neither Mukhtiar Singh nor his wife has stood up in favour of Jagga Singh either openly or by implication tried to help him out of his travails is indicative of the remorse that was felt by the brother-in- law and sister in relation to the indiscretion of youth that had probably led to the attempted rape and ultimate killing of Baljeet Kaurwhen the advances of Jagga Singh were not responded to by the deceased.

It is in this backdrop that the Trial Court was called upon to assess the prosecution evidence, which consists of testimony of the eye witness i.e. Bhola Singh, who appeared as PW9 and his nephew Gurdeep Singh PW 10 in the light of the corroboration available in the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency in the shape of Chhuri (knife) that was recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement given by accused, the injuries found on the person of deceased and the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory. In his statement, Bhola Singh has spelt out the details of how he and his wife had gone to village Neemla and when he returned alone to the house after his wife had stayed back at Bus Stand, Malleka, he had found the appellant on the bed with the deceased with his shirt off and in his presence had given one blow with Chhuri Ex.P4 and run away. Gurdeep Singh PW corroborated this part of the statement which says that Jagga Singh had run away from the house of Bhola Singh with Chhuri in his hand. As already indicated by us, the appellant is a closed relation of the family being brother-in-law of Mukhtiar Singh, who is none other than the brother of the complainant. With close members of the family deposing against him and Dr.N.K.Mittal finding the only following injury on the person of deceased:-

"An incised wound size 4 cms x 2 cms deep upto thoracic cavity on right side. Margin of the wound was clean and vertically oblique in direction, 10 cms above and lateral to the right nipple, 7 cms below and medial to the mid of the right axilla. On probing of the wound, the wound was directed medially and downward. On dissection of the wound, there was sub-cutaneous infilteration of the blood and there was fracture of 4th

rib and was rupture of right side plura, Muscle of inter-costal and pleural cavity containing blood. There was laceration of mid of the lung on right side and that was through and through. There was also cut on the paricardial cavity on the right of upper surface of heart Paricardial cavity was full of blood.

There was sharp cut on the right antrium of the heart. Heart was empty and pale. There was concide tear on cloth. Clotten blood was present inside the wound."

which according to him could be caused by the Chhuri Ex.P4 shown to him by the police at that time i.e. 16.7.l998, "the medical as well as scientific evidence that has been collected by the police corroborates the version put forth by Bhola Singh and Gurdeep Singh in Court." The report of Forensic Science Laboratory, according to which traces of human blood were found on Chhuri Ex.P4, bed sheet, bushirt and lady shirt has rightly been relied upon by the Trial Court for coming to the conclusion that what has been stated by eye witnesses Bhola Singh and Gurdeep Singh is correct.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has after rightly marshaling evidence drawn the correct conclusions regarding the guilt of appellant and therefore, the appeal filed by Jagga Singh has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

(Amar Dutt)


August 1,2005 (Kiran Anand Lall)

Pa Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.