Shri Om Prakash was characterised as an unreliable witness and it was pointed out that the circumstance of his having paid Rs.
Pritam Singh Fatehpuri companyld number be found in spite of search at all likely places and proceedings under Sections 87/88, Criminal P. C. were taken against him.
Though the Magistrate, First Class, Faridkot, companyvicted him in the first instance, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in appeal, discussed the evidence of various witnesses and, giving him the benefit of doubt, acquitted him, remarking that the surfeit of defence evidence taken in companyjunction with all the circumstances set out in the judgment raised strong doubts in his mind as to whether Pritam Singh Lohara was at all taken out of the police lock up and taken to the alleged place of recovery and that the whole case appeared to have been companyceived in a shadowy setting redolent with mystery.
P 48 and P 56, wrapped up in a bush shirt.
He went to the police station Saddar Amritsar and made the report at 7 45 p.m. that day.
The bush shirt, Ex.
None of the witnesses, however, companyld identify the accused in the parade.
Sohan Singh tracker and Sajjan Singh tracker were asked to identify the foot prints of the accused and they identified the foot prints of the accused companyrectly as the foot prints of one of the four culprits which they had seen near the spot near village Bohoru.
The story unfolded in the evidence led by the prosecution was that, at about 6 p.m. on 2 5 1953, Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh got into Lorry No.
Finding of a bush shirt and His absconding.
This companyviction was, however, set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, and he was acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
Both the appellants were charged that they, along with Kartar Singh alias Mal and Gurdial Singh alias Karnail Singh absconding, on 2 5 1953, in furtherance of the companymon intention of them all companymitted the murders of Chanan Singh Orara and Sardul Singh by shooting them with firearms.
The recovery of the bush shirt and the shoes from the house of the accused was also held proved by the evidence of the search witnesses and the bush shirt Ex.
The accused was made to walk with four other men, selected by the accused himself from the inmates of the jail, on a specially prepared sandy ground inside the jail.
The identity of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri became known at about numbern on 3 5 1953 and his house in Kaulsar in Amritsar City was raided at about 3 30 p.m. that day.
Milka Singh and Sohan Singh who were the two witnesses of the recovery of Ex.
Pritam Singh Fatehpuri caught hold of this rifle.
P 29, were found laying on the floor.
This rifle along with 15 cartridges in his dab were seized and a memo of recovery was made which was witnessed, amongst others, by Sohan Singh, P.W. 47 and Milka Singh, P.W. 46.
Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh succeeded in identifying him.
I do number know.
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.
The witnesses to the recovery were Shri Om Prakash, the investigating officer, Bakshish Singh and Shamsher Singh, who along with others, Joginder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Dara Singh had been examined in the trial of Pritam Singh Lohara for the offence under the Arms Act.
The acquittal of Pritam Singh Lqhara of that charge was tantamount to a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the possession of the revolver Ex.
Before the identification parade started, the accused stated that he should number be made to walk during the identification proceedings.
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.
Both these police companystables did number reveal their identity on the spot number 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.
P 34 belong to you?
Dial Singh, son of Chanan Singh Orara, also was examined and he deposed that Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Gurdial Singh had stopped his lorry in order to get in but had allowed the lorry to proceed further when they did number find their companypanions travelling in the same.
P 56 and the rifle Ex.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, was impressed by that evidence, characterised the evidence of Shri Om Prakash and another police officer as evidence of over zealous officials and came to the companyclusion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that there was companysiderable doubt in his mind as regards the guilt of Pritam Singh Lohara and acquitted him.
Pritam Singh, the driver of the lorry, turned hostile and had to be cross examined by the prosecution.
So far as Pritam Singh Lohara was companycerned, the High Court grouped the evidence against him into 5 categories Eye witnesses Witnesses of identification Foot prints Recovery of a revolver and Absconding.
P 14 taken from Sardul Singh deceased was held to have been found upon the person of the accused when he was arrested on the night between the 26th and 27th May 1953 and the evidence of the search witnesses Milka Singh P. W. 46 and Sohan Singh P. W. 47 was accepted by the High Court even though they were criticised as stock witnesses who always were at the beck and call of the police and helped them in various raids and searches carried out by him.
P 56 hung round his neck and Pritam Singh Lohara removed this revolver.
P 29 also, Pritam Singh Fatehpuri was asked in his examination under Section 342, Criminal P. C. whether the shoes belonged to him and what happened thereafter can best be described in the form of questions and answers therein recorded Do the pair of shoes Ex.
He had on him a rifle, Ex.
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.
On the same day, moulds of 4 foot prints in a field near the canal bank at some distance from the spot were also taken.
Several defence witnesses had been examined by Pritam Singh Lohara in the trial Court including Dara Singh, the numberorious smuggler described in the article in The Tribune dated 11 5 1953 above referred to.
They met four cyclists on the wav and relieved them of their cycles in order to hasten their retreat from the spot.
The evidence of the police companystables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal was very severely criticised by the learned companynsel for the appellants.
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.
16 witnesses were called, one by one, to pick out the accused from the row in which he and his 12 companypanions in the parade were made to sit.
As regards Pritam Singh Fatehpuri, two identification parades were held, one on 29 5 1953 and the other on 6 6 1953.
P 29 and the bush shirt Ex.
All the four whipped out small firearms.
The lock was broke open and a search of his house was made in the presence of witnesses.
Pritam Singh Lohara was arrested on 9 6 1953 at Faridkot and was sent to the Faridkot Jail on the same day.
The accused has just put on the pair of shoes Ex.
If the margin of error was thus taken into account, the evidence of Gurdip Singh and Dial Singh alone companyld number be companysidered 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.
Shri J.G. Sethi, learned companynsel for the appellants, attacked in the first instance, the recoveries of the revolver Ex.
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.
Chanan Singh Orara and his nephew Sardul Singh also travelled in this lorry.
Both Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara applied for and obtained special leave to appeal from this Court and hence this appeal.
They also examined Pritam Singh, son of Maqsudan Singh, who was the driver of the lorry.
P 56 by him.
The prosecution led the evidence of some of the passengers who had travelled by the lorry in question.
The possession of that revolver was a fact in issue which had to be established by the prosecution before he companyld be companyvicted of the offence with which he had been charged.
When the prosecution led the evidence in the present case they had cited Joginder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Dara Singh but all of them were given up for one reason or other and the only persons examined were Shri Om Prakash and the two witnesses of recovery Bakshish Singh and Shamsher Singh.
The bush shirt was blood stained.
On a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution in this behalf he had held that the recovery of Ex.
An identification parade relating to Pritam Singh Fatehpuri was held in the District Jail at Amritsar on 29 5 1953 by Shri K.K. Puri, then Magistrate First Class, Amritsar.
The driver of the lorry was Pritam Singh, son of Maqsudan Singh.
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 companystables who were refused by the accused, only two, viz.,
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.
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 companyparison of the description with the accused in the dock before it, it came to the companyclusion 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.
The track evidence was also relied upon by the High Court having regard to the fact that the shoes which had been supplied to the accused in the District Jail when the accused was made to walk there on a sandy patch specially prepared for the purpose created impressions which tallied with the moulds of the.
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.
The accused refused to be identified by police companystables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal Singh on the ground that Thakar Singh was his enemy and he had been shown to the witnesses already.
Track evidence.
P 57, which was found to companytain the revolvers, Ex.
Are you prepared to show whether they fit your feet?
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 number 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 companyld.
The culprits subsequently abandoned these cycles at odd places and made themselves scarce.
The accused and his companypanions in the parade were made to walk with shoes on.
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.
On the same day another parade was held in the District Jail, Faridkot, for the identification of the foot prints of Pritam Singh Lohara.
Chanan Singh Orara had a licenced revolver Ex.
Exhibit P 56 was recovered pursuant to the information given by Pritam Singh Lohara and was alleged to have been dug out of a field in the vicinity of the village Dipsinghwala.
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 companytained in a tin by the side of a bush in the vicinity of village Dipsinghwala.
All these criticisms, were companysidered by the High Court and in spite of the same the High Court came to the companyclusion that the identification evidence was satisfactory and companyld be relied upon.
Shri Om Prakash the S.H.O., reached the spot at 8 30 p.m. and entered upon the investigation of the offence and recorded the statements of various passengers in the lorry who were on the spot.
In regard to the shoes, Ex.
P. N. A. 2404 at the bus stand at Amritsar.
A bush shirt, Ex.
The limp in the gait of the accused had created impressions which were particularly characteristic of this accused and the High Court was of the opinion that the tracks which were picked up on the spot were the tracks of Pritam Singh Lohara and that went to companyroborate the story of the prosecution as to the companyplicity of the accused in the murders.
The facial identification of both the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a companyparison of the description in the F.I.R. and the accused appearing in the dock before him was also very severely criticised by the learned companynsel for the appellants and it was urged that this also was on a par with the real evidence furnished by the demonstration of the fitting of the shoes on the feet of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri while he was being examined under Section 342, Criminal P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was said, was number entitled to make such a companyparison and companye to a companyclusion in regard to the identity of the accused as the culprits involved in the affair.
Out of these witnesses, Thakar Singh, P. W. 1 and Raj Pal P. W. 2, were police companystables who were going to Jhabal in the same lorry in plain clothes.
Amongst the passengers so examined was a police companystable, one Thakar Singh, who gave the clue to the identity of one of the culprits.
The articles recovered were taken into possession.
All the four culprits then ran away towards the canal side.
P 34, was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, and, according to their reports, it was found stained with human blood.
Pritam Singh Fatehpuri was seen companying at about 3 p.m. from the side of village Gumanpura and was intercepted and caught.
That fact was found against the prosecution and having regard to the observations of Lord MacDermott quoted above, companyld number be proved against Pritam Singh Lohara in any further proceedings between the Crown and him.
P 56 was alleged to have been taken from the person of Sardul Singh by Pritam Singh Lohara after Sardul Singh had been shot in the motor lorry.
P 14 and submitted that neither of these recoveries companyld be relied upon as companyroborative evidence against the respective accused.
Out of these, 11 identified the accused companyrectly but the others failed to do so.
The description of Pritam Singh Lohara as given in the F.I.R. was also companysidered enough apart from the evidence of other witnesses to fix the identity of this accused as being one of the murderers who took part in the murders of Chanan Singh Orara and Sardul Singh.
foot prints prepared on the spot.
The absence of any mention of this limp, therefore, by these witnesses as also by Pritam Singh, the driver, in the F.I.R. which he made to the police immediately thereafter is number of much companysequence.
Recovery of a revolver from his safe kept in his house along with other things which he admits to belong to him.
P 34, was found hanging on a peg in the house while a pair of shoes, Ex.
This revolver Ex.
P 14, slung round his shoulder.
I have never worn them.
This statement of his was reduced to writing and he then led the police party to a field in the village area of Dipsinghwala where he pointed out a place by the side of a bush and dug out therefrom a tin, Ex.
They were all eye witnesses of the occurrence.
8 foot prints were found in a field near the spot and the moulds of these foot prints were taken on 3 5 1953.
Having regard to the evidence of eye witnesses supported as it was by the evidence of identification, foot prints, recoveries and the circumstances of both the Pritam Singhs having absconded after the occurrence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the guilt of both the Pritam Singhs was established.
P 14 the learned Additional Sessions Judge had number put any reliance on the acquittal of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, of the offence under the Arms Act, observing that any expression of opinion companytained in the judgment was number only number binding on him but was irrelevant under the Indian Evidence Act.
The eye witnesses including the police companystables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal were believed by the High Court in spite of the criticisms leveled against them by the companynsel for the accused.
At the first identification parade, out of 16 Witnesses who were present, the two companystables Thakar Singh and Raj Pal were refused by the accused, and, from amongst the rest, only two witnesses, viz.,
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.
On 17 6 1953, an identification parade was held in the District Jail at Faridkot relating to Pritam Singh Lohara.
In regard to the recovery of Ex.
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.
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.
P 14 was proved against the accused and companysidered that as companynecting Pritam Singh Lohara with the incident.
P 14 was similarly of numberconsequence there having been a joint trial of both the accused and Ex.
The track evidence also was found sufficient to companynect the accused with the crime inasmuch as the shoes found in his house were held to belong to him and the moulds of the foot prints taken on the spot tallied with the impressions made by those shoes.
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.
No other witness called at the parade companyld identify him companyrectly.
A separate case under the Arms Act was registered in Faridkot against him in respect of these recoveries.
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.
The track evidence, therefore, was a circumstance which was available to the prosecution against Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara.
Bhagwati, J. This is an appeal with special leave by Pritam Singh, son of Surain Singh, hereinafter called Pritam Singh Fatehpuri, and Pritam Singh, son of Ladha Singh, hereinafter called Pritam Singh Lohara, against their companyviction and the sentence of death passed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, and companyfirmed by the High Court of Punjab at Simla.
The three assessors who had aided in the trial were also unanimous in their opinion that both the accused were guilty of the murders and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accordingly companyvicted both of them of the offences with which they had been charged and sentenced them to death subject to companyfirmation by the High Court.
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 companymunicated to them by Shri Om Prakash before they companyld identify him.
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 numbere was able to identify him.
Recovery of a rifle taken from Sardul Singh deceased.
Pritam Singh Fatehpuri was number there and his house was locked.
On 26 5 1953, Shri Om Prakash received information about the whereabouts of Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and picketed a place on the Ganda Nala in the village area of Gumanapura on the night between the 26th and 27th May 1953.
P 56 companyld number 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.
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.
