TMI Blog1955 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lorry. Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Gurdial Singh got into the lorry on the way and seated themselves with Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh in the seats which had been already reserved for them by the latter. When the lorry neared the village Bohoru, the driver stopped the lorry on being asked to do so and the two Pritam Singhs and both the absconders got down from the lorry. Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Gurdial Singh stood on the right flank of the lorry nearest to the seat on which Chanan Singh was sitting on the front-row of seats just behind the driver while Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh went over the left flank next to Sardul Singh. All the four whipped out small firearms. Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Gurdial Singh fired at Chanan Singh while Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh fired at Sardul Singh with their respective firearms and both the victims died on the spot. Sardul Singh had a rifle, Ex. P-14 with him which was a licenced one and belonged to Chanan Singh Orara who had given it over to Sardul Singh for carrying it on the journey. Pritam Singh Fatehpuri caught hold of this rifle. Chanan Singh Orara had a licenced revolver Ex. P-56 hung round his neck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen Magistrate First Class, Amritsar. The accused refused to be identified by police constables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal Singh on the ground that Thakar Singh was his enemy and he had been shown to the witnesses already. Of the other witnesses, Gurdip Singh identified the accused as one of the culprits who murdered the two deceased while Dial Singh picked him out as one of the two men who had stopped the lorry at the railway crossing. No other witness called at the parade could identify him correctly. 6. Another identification parade relating to Pritam Singh Fatehpuri was held by Shri M. Isa Das, Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, on 6-6-1953 in the District Jail at Amritsar. None of the witnesses, however, could identify the accused in the parade. 7. Pritam Singh Lohara was arrested on 9-6-1953 at Faridkot and was sent to the Faridkot Jail on the same day. He was interrogated there by Shri Om Prakash on 22-6-1953 and he disclosed that he had buried two revolvers wrapped in a bush-shirt and contained in a tin by the side of a bush in the vicinity of village Dipsinghwala. This statement of his was reduced to writing and he then led the police party to a field in the village ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Singh had stopped his lorry in order to get in but had allowed the lorry to proceed further when they did not find their companions travelling in the same. Pritam Singh, the driver of the lorry, turned hostile and had to be cross-examined by the prosecution. He had given the description of the culprits in the F.I.R. but did mot identify Pritam Singh Fatehpuri in the identification parade which was held in the District Jail at Amritsar on 29-5-1953. He also deposed that the witnesses who had identified Pritam Singh Lohara at Faridkot had gone to Faridkot two days before the identification parade and Shri Om Prakash had shown him in the Deorhi of the jail to the witnesses before the parade. In view of this attitude of the witness the Court looked at the description given by him of the culprits in the F.I.R. and on a comparison of the description with the accused in the dock before it, it came to the conclusion that one of the descriptions fitted Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and thus was sufficient to identify him, observing: Anyhow, the description given in the First Information Report is by far more apt than inapt in its application to Pritam Singh Fatehpuri accused'. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from Sardul Singh deceased. (4) Track evidence. (5) Finding of a bush-shirt; and (6) His absconding. The identification evidence suffered from the disability that out of as many as 16 witnesses who were present at the identification parade held on 29-5-1953, barring the two constables who were refused by the accused, only two, viz., Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh identified the accused, and out of the 5 witnesses who were present at the identification parade held on 6-6-1953 none was able to identify him. Even so, the High Court considered that the identification by Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh was satisfactory and relied upon the same though it observed: If this was the only piece of evidence perhaps it would have been unsafe to convict as standing by itself it might not have been sufficient, but as I shall show later there are other pieces of evidence which go to support the case for the prosecution . It further observed: In any case, I am satisfied that the identification was carried out in a very straightforward manner and identification by Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh cannot be rejected as being either casual or as a result of mere change . The recovery of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d trial Judge fit him. I would, therefore, hold that Pritam Singh Fatehpuri accused has been rightly convicted . 15. So far as Pritam Singh Lohara was concerned, the High Court grouped the evidence against him into 5 categories: (1) Eye-witnesses (2) Witnesses of identification (3) Foot-prints (4) Recovery of a revolver; and (5) Absconding. The eye-witnesses including the police constables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal were believed by the High Court in spite of the criticisms leveled against them by the counsel for the accused. The identification evidence had been characterised as got up, the accused having alleged that, before the identification parade was held, he was shown by Shri Om Prakash to the witnesses in the Deorhi of Faridkot Jail. As many as 11 witnesses out of the 16 who were present at the identification parade had identified the accused and it was alleged that most of them looked closely at the face of the accused for some time before they were able to identify him and obviously they were looking for some mark of identification on the face which had been communicated to them by Shri Om Prakash before they could identify him. All these criticisms, were cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances attendant upon the recovery of the revolver Ex. P-14 and the acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 19(f), Arms Act, the High Court was of the opinion that this evidence could not be taken into consideration against him. The High Court, however, held that the evidence against Pritam Singh Lohara consisting of that of the eye-witnesses who stated that they saw him getting into the bus and then committing the murders and running away from the spot, of identification of footprints and of absconding, which was quite satisfactory, was sufficient to convict him and it accordingly came to the conclusion that he also had been rightly convicted. 16. The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeals of both Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara, did not see any ground for interfering with the sentence of death passed upon them and confirmed the same. 17. Both Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara applied for and obtained special leave to appeal from this Court and hence this appeal. 18. Shri J.G. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants, attacked in the first instance, the recoveries of the revolver Ex. P-56 and the rifle Ex. P-14 and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en identified as having been worn by Jathedar Chanan Singh who, along with his nephew Sardul Singh, was shot dead in a bus on 2-5-1953 and that the police had also recovered from Chogawan a rifle which was carried by Sardul Singh. It was urged that if this news item was correct Ex. P-56 could not have been recovered from the field near the village Dipsinghwala as alleged and must have been foisted on Pritam Singh Lohara by the police in order to provide a circumstantial piece of evidence against him. The observations of the High Court, in appeal, were also relied upon to show that this circumstance could not be used against Pritam Singh Lohara having regard to the position in law as set out in the passage from the judgment of Lord MacDermott cited above and if that circumstance was of no avail to the prosecution as against Pritam Singh Lohara, the recovery of the rifle Ex. P-14 was similarly of no consequence there having been a joint trial of both the accused and Ex. P-14 having been one of the pistols alleged to have been recovered from the wall of the village well in Lopoki police station after the arrest of Dara. Milka Singh and Sohan Singh who were the two witnesses o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the alleged recoveries and that the Court would scrutinise with great care the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to-the same. The evidence of Shri Om Prakash certainly could not be viewed with suspicion merely because the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, had acquitted the accused Pritam Singh Lohara of the charge under the Arms Act and the evidence of the other witnesses also could not suffer in con sequence of such acquittal. The evidence of these witnesses, Bakshish Singh and Shamsher Singh in regard to the recovery of Ex. P-56 and of Milka Singh and Sohan Singh in regard to the recovery of Ex. P-14 would have to be considered independently and the latter could be considered against the accused only if the Court was satisfied that it was reliable. The evidence of Milka Singh and Sohan Singh was-scrutinised both by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and also by the High Court and both these Courts came to the conclusion that they could rely upon the same in spite of the criticisms which had been leveled against it by the counsel for the defence. The reasons given by the High Court for rejecting the criticisms against their evidence were no doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance. 21. Learned conusel for the appellants next criticised the identification evidence against both the accused. As regards Pritam Singh Fatehpuri, two identification parades were held, one on 29-5-1953 and the other on 6-6-1953. At the first identification parade, out of 16 Witnesses who were present, the two constables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal were refused by the accused, and, from amongst the rest, only two witnesses, viz., Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh succeeded in identifying him. It was urged that 17 witnesses failed to identify the accused from amongst whom 5 identified Jagir Singh, a wrong person altogether with the result that about 95 per cent of the witnesses failed to identify him. If the margin of error was thus taken into account, the evidence of Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh alone could not be considered sufficient to identify the accused, particularly when Pritam Singh, the driver, who was expected to have observed the accused at the time of the incident, had given an unsatisfactory description in the F.I.R. and had failed to identify him at the identification parade. While appreciating the strength of this criticism, we cannot, however, ignore the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the police immediately thereafter is not of much consequence. Both the Courts were moreover satisfied as regards the result of the identification parade held in regard to Pritam Singh Lohara and found as a fact that he was identified as one of the culprits. The identification of both Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara, therefore, stands established and is a piece of circumstantial evidence which can be used against them. 23. It was further urged that the track evidence was quite unsatisfactory and should not have been relied upon by the Courts below. The science of identification of footprints was in a very rudimentary stage and it was submitted that such evidence could not furnish a satisfactory clue to the identity of the culprits. The shoes which were found in the search at the house of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri had not been established to belong to him and in the absence of any satisfactory evidence as to their ownership, any comparison of the impressions made by those shoes with the moulds prepared from the foot-prints on the spot could not establish the identity of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri as one of the culprits. There was, moreover, a further circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which this demonstration could have been made. The accused, however, agreed to do so and on the shoes being tried on his feet it appeared that they fitted his feet. Realising, however, that the result of this demonstration would be adverse to his defence he complained that the shoes were too tight for his feet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, thought otherwise and recorded his impression accordingly. This type of evidence was very strongly criticised by the learned counsel for the appellants as real evidence which was not justified at all by the provisions of Section 539B, Criminal P. C. or otherwise and it was urged that it was a matter which prejudiced the defence of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was certainly not entitled to allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence because such view or observation of his could not be tested by cross-examination and the accused would certainly not be in a position to furnish any explanation in regard to the same. The whole thing appears to have been done with the consent of the accused and the only criticism which could be legitimately leveled was against the observation recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara. 25. The evidence of the police constables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal was very severely criticised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Even though Thakar Singh belonged to the police force and Pritam Singh Fatehpuri once belonged to the same and was known to him before the date of the incident, his name was not given out by Thakar Singh when Pritam Singh, the driver, made the enquiries from the passengers on the spot with the result that in the F.I.R. Pritam Singh the driver, gave such description of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri as he could. The identity of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri was established only later on a clue being furnished by Thakar Singh himself to Shri Om Prakash and even then he was able to give out his name in the first instance but the name was ascertained later. Both these police constables did not reveal their identity on the spot nor did they take charge of the investigations but waited until Shri Om Prakash took their statements when only they disclosed to him who they were. These criticisms, though they go some way towards creating a doubt about the veracity of these witnesses, do not, in our opinion, destroy the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to incorporate these observations of his in the judgment and base his conclusions on the same. We are, however, of the opinion that even discarding these observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in regard to the facial identification of both the accused, there is abundant evidence on the record which would justify his conclusions against them. 27. The absconding of both the accused after the incident and their having made themselves scarce right from 2-5-1953 up to the night between the 26th and 27th May 1953 in the case of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and up to 9-6-1953 in the case of Pritam Singh Lohara is a further circumstance against them. No satisfactory explanation was at all rendered by either of them in regard to their absence from their normal place of residence and, they were not available to the police in spite of all their efforts to trace them. This absconding of the accused, therefore, along with the other incriminating circumstances goes a great way to point to their culpability. 28. Having devoted our anxious thoughts to all the arguments addressed to us by the learned counsel for the appellants, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
