IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
Dated of Decision:- September 09 , 2009
Gulab Singh ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:- Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Sh. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. Advocate General Haryana.
------
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.3.2001 of the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted Gulab Singh son
of Kanshi Ram under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life
imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to
further undergo R.I. for one year. Gulab Singh was also convicted under
Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo one year
R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for six
months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PH
of Pirthi Singh, given to Roshan Lal ASI in General Hospital, Fatehabad.
2
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
Pirthi Singh stated, that at about 6.00 p.m. on 25.9.98, he came
down from a jeep at the bus stand and started walking towards his house.
When he reached near the flour grinding machine of Bhal Singh, Gulab
Singh son of Kanshi Ram was standing there. On seeing Chhottu Ram,
Gulab Singh started abusing him in the name of his mother and sister.
Chhotu Ram also retaliated in the same way. A scuffle ensued. Pirthi Ram
tried to separate them. In the meantime, Inder Singh son of Har Chand also
reached at the spot. He also tried to separate them. Gulab Singh, when the
scuffle was going on, took out a knife and gave a blow on the lower portion
of left flank of Chhotu Ram. Thereafter he fled from the spot with the
knife. On the way to the hospital, Chhotu Ram succumbed to the injuries.
Some altercation had taken place 4/5 days earlier to the occurrence.
On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PH/2 was registered on
26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. at Police Station Agroha and the special report
reached J.M.I.C. Hisar, on the same day at 10.15 a.m.
The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box,
Jai Bhagwan HC PW1, Sadhu Ram Patwari PW2, C. Kashmir Singh PW3,
Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4, Maya Devi PW5, C.Ranjit Singh PW6, HC Hans
Raj PW7, Prithwi Singh PW8, Inder Singh PW9, ASI Roshan Lal PW10 and
SI Hans Raj PW11. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
pleaded false implication on suspicion.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an
unexplained delay of 16 hours between the time the occurrence had taken
place and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Hisar. Occurrence had
taken place on 25.9.98 at 6.00 p.m. and the special report reached the
J.M.I.C., Hisar on 26.9.98 at 10.15 a.m. This delay was being utilized to
3
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
falsely implicate the appellant. It was a case of blind murder. No one knew
as to who had committed the murder of Chhotu Ram and the complainant
party in connivance with the Investigating Officer falsely implicated the
appellant.
The motive for the commission of the offence is that 4/5 days
before the occurrence, appellant allegedly went to the house of Maya Devi
PW5 wife of Surjit Singh, who was married to the brother of Chhotu Ram
deceased. He went there to molest her is not substantiated. It had been
stated, by Maya Devi PW5, that appellant jumped over a 10 feet high wall
and when she made a hue and cry, he ran away. Nothing has come on
record as to how he scaled this 10 feet high wall. Appellant would have not
tried to molest Maya Devi PW5 in the evening, when the family members
were at home.
There are discrepancies in the statements of Prithvi Singh PW8
and Inder Singh PW9. Prithvi Singh PW8 has stated, that he sent Inder
Singh PW9 to arrange a conveyance, while Inder Singh PW9 has stated, that
he sent Sohan Lal to arrange for conveyance.
The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account.
One side of Knife Ex.P5 is blunt. It could not have given an injury, which
had clean margins, as stated by Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4.
Lastly, the learned counsel has argued, that at the most, the
case falls within the ambits of Section 304 IPC. Appellant did not have an
intention to commit the murder of Chhotu Ram. It was a sudden fight.
There was no previous enmity between the parties. A specific blow had
been given and no second attempt was made to inflict another injury on the
person of the deceased.
4
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the prosecution
is an eye witness account. Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9 have
seen the occurrence. Both the witnesses are independent and are not closely
related to the complainant party. No any suggestion has been put to them
regarding they being interested witnesses. They do not have any enmity
with the appellant.
The motive for the commission of the offence was that,
appellant tried to molest Maya Devi PW5. A woman would not have come
into the witness box and on oath level allegations against a neighbourer, if
nothing had happened. Maya Devi PW5’s husband was serving in the BSF.
Finding her alone in the house, appellant tried to molest her. As she made a
hue and cry, he ran away. Maya Devi PW5 informed Prithwi Singh PW8,
who further informed Chhotu Ram deceased of the molestation.
There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. In fact FIR Ex.PH/2 is
prompt. Occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. Police station Agroha
was about 12 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. FIR Ex.PH/2 was
recorded on 26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. and by 10.15 a.m. on the same day, the
special report had reached in the safe hands of the J.M.I.C., Hisar.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record with their assistance.
Occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M. on 25.9.98. Police
Station Agroha was 12 K.Ms. away from Village Kumharia, where the
occurrence had taken place. It was night time. Some transport had to be
arranged to take injured Chhotu Ram to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad. At the
same time police had to be informed. The Investigating Officer ASI Roshan
Lal PW10 recorded the statement of Prithwi Singh PW8 at General
5
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
Hospital, Fatehabad. On the basis of which, FIR Ex.PH/2 came into
existence on 26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. at Police Station Agroha. The special
report reached the J.M.I.C., Hisar at 10.15 a.m. on the same day. There is
no delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place in the night at
6.00 p.m. FIR was recorded at 12.30 a.m. The inquest report had also been
prepared and the FIR was in the safe hands of the J.M.I.C., Hisar at 10.15
a.m.
It is an eye witness account, where two independent witnesses
Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9 having no enmity or ill will
towards the appellant have categorically stated, that it was appellant Gulab
Singh, who inflicted a knife blow in the left portion of the stomach of
Chhotu Ram. Their testimony is cogent, truthful and inspires confidence.
As per Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4, who performed the post
mortem, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: –
“1. There was a wound with clean cut margins on the left
side of the chest below the axilla lying obliquely in the
post axillary line 3½ inch below the post axillary fold.
On further dissection the wound was going inwards and
piercing the left lung at its lower lob along with pleura
and thereafter it was entering the heart on its posterior
surface. The size of the wound in the skin and
subcutaneous tissue was 1 inch x half inch and in the
lung and heart the size was also about 1 inch x half inch.
The whole of the thorax cavity of the left side was full of
blood. The pericardium was also full of blood. The
dissection was carried out below the wound in the skin
and subcutaneous infiltration of blood was seen in tissue.
6
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4 has stated, that the injury on the
person of the deceased could be caused on 25.9.1998 at about 6.00 p.m.
The knife recovered is a long one. Knife Ex.P5 is a pointed weapon. It is
sharp on both the sides as per Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that
knife Ex.P5 was blunt from one side, is not supported by the medical
evidence. In fact the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account,
where it has come that the margins were clean cut. Knife Ex.P5 was sharp
from both sides and that is the reason that the margins were clean cut. So
severe was the wound inflicted on Chhotu Ram, that knife Ex.P5 pierced the
left lung and thereafter injured the heart in the posterior surface. The
wound is measuring 1 inch x ½ inch from the lung to the heart.
Both Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9, who are eye
witnesses, in their testimony before the Court have stated, that after Chhotu
Ram had alighted from a vehicle at the bus stand on 25.9.98, when he
reached near the flour grinding machine of Bhal Singh, appellant Gulab
Singh was standing there. He stopped Chhotu Ram after abusing him. An
altercation ensued, between both of them. Both Prithvi Singh PW8 and
Inder Singh PW9 tried to separate them, but appellant, who had Knife Ex.P5
in his possession, gave a blow on the left flank of Chhotu Ram and
thereafter ran away. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account.
The motive for the commission of the offence is spelt out by
Maya Devi PW5, who has stated that her husband is working in BSF.
Gulab Singh, who is neighbour and has a common wall, 4/5 days before the
occurrence jumped over the common wall and tried to molest her at 9.30
p.m. She informed about this occurrence to Prithwi Singh PW8, who
7
Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001
informed Chhotu Ram. Chhotu Ram deceased was the real brother of Maya
Devi PW5’s husband Surjit Singh. Learned counsel for the State has
rightly argued, that Maya Devi PW5 would have not come into the witness
box to state about her molestation. No woman would state that she was
molested, if the truth is otherwise.
The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant regarding the statements of Prithwi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh
PW9 are minor in nature. They do not materially affect the case.
The case of the appellant does not fall within the ambits of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There was a previous quarrel
4/5 days earlier between deceased and the appellant, as deceased Chhotu
Ram admonished appellant for trying to molest Maya Devi PW5.
With the above discussion and observations, we do not
find any merit in the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
(MEHTAB S.GILL)
JUDGE
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
September 09, 2009 JUDGE
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO