JUDGMENT
A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Khazan Singh aged about 33 years was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on March 21, 1987 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs, 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302, I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 326, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs, 500/-, in default to , undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Khazan Singh has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.
2. The occurrence took place on Aug. 11,1983 at about noon time in the house of Gurmit Singh, informant situated in Shori Nagar, Chhaharata, District Amritsar. Dhararn Pal along with wife Maya Devi and an infant child Sonu was residing in the house as tenant. Khazan Singh accused was also a tenant in that house earlier, Khazan Singh, armed with a Kirpan, accompanied by Lakhwinder Singh and Thamman Singh came to the house of Dharam Pal. Lakhwinder Singh remained outside whereas Khazan Singh and Thamman Singh entered the room of Dharampal. Khazan Singh attacked Dharam Pal Singh with the Kirpan causing injuries on his left hand and left upper arm. Thamman Singh also gave injury, to Dharam Pal on his head with the sword. When Maya Devi, wife of Dharam Pal came forward, Thamman Singh attacked her causing injuries upon her hand which has resulted in fracture of her left hand. Khazan Singh also gave injury oh the head of Maya Devi. Khazan Singh gave injuries with the kirpan to Sonu, the infant child, on the face and the back, Dharam Pal came out in the courtyard. Gurbachan Kaur, mother of Gurmit Singh, informant came there to persuade the accused not to give injuries. Khazan Singh gave blows with the kirpan hitting her on the shoulder and the hand. Thamman Singh also gave injuries to Gurbachan Kaur. Lakhwinder Singh, who was standing outside the house, had instigated them to attack. An attempt was made to attack Gurmit Singh also, however, he escaped while going out of the house. After the occurrence, the accused left the place. Gurmit Singh brought a three-wheeler wherein the injured were removed to the hospital. Sonu died on reaching the hospital. Dharam Pal, Maya Devi and Gurbachan Kaur were admitted. Gurmit Singh made a statement in the hospital to the police at 4.10 p.m. on the basis of which first information report was recorded at 4.30 p.m. The special report reached the hands of the Magistrate at 9.15 p.m. on that very day.
3. The police investigated the case, got the post-mortem on the dead body of Sonu conducted and took into possession the medico-legal reports of the three injured. On Aug. 12, 1983 statement of Gurbachan Kaur was recorded. Dharam Pal and Maya Devi were unconscious. Statement of Dharam Pal was recorded on the following day i.e. Aug. 12, 1983 and that of Maya Devi on Aug. 14, l983. The spot was inspected Blood-stained clothes of the injured and the deceased were taken into possession. From the spot, one mat (Chatai) and blood-stained earth were : taken into possession. Khazan Singh and Lakhwinder Singh accused were arrested however, Thamman Singh accused was absconding and was declared a proclaimed offender. Challan was presented against Khazan Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. They were charged for committing the murder of Sonu and causing hurt to Dharam Pal, Maya Devi and Gurbachan Kaur.
4. The prosecution relies upon the medical evidence as well as ocular evidence of the two eye-witnesses P. W. 14 Dharam Pal and P.W. 15 Maya Devi. The prosecution also relies upon circumstantial evidence which relates to recovery of blood-stained earth and chatai from the spot. The Investigating Officers also appeared as witnesses. The accused pleaded innocence while denying the prosecution allegations. However, no evidence in defence was produced. Lakhwinder Singh accused was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge whereas Khazan Singh was convicted and sentenced as stated avove.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since the informant Gurmit Singh has not been produced, the prosecution cannot succeed in establishing the case against the appellant. This contention cannot be accepted. The first information report was recorded on the basis of statement of Gurmit Singh by S.I. Gurmit Chand P.W. 22. The said statement cannot be made use of as Gurmit Singh informant has not been produced. Even otherwise, the first information report could not be treated as substantive piece of evidence. However, by non-production of Gurmit Singh informant, the prosecution case is not to suffer as the evidence of the eye-witnesses produced in the case is to be considered independently. If the eyewitnesses’ account is considered reliable, conviction of the appellant can be maintained safely. Dharam Pal P.W. 14 and Maya Devi P.W. 15 are the two eye-witnesses produced in this case. They are parents of Sonu deceased. They also suffered injuries in the occurrence. Their presence in their own house at the time of the occurrence was most natural. There is no reason why they would shield the real culprit and involve the present appellant falsely in the case. Their evidence is consistent with regard to the injuries caused by Khazan Singh and Thamman Singh to the deceased Sonu as well as to them and Gurbachan Kaur. The only discrepancy , pointed out is that earlier Dharam Pal’s case was that the injuries were suffered while inside the room whereas during the trial it is stated that after they suffered injuries, they came to the courtyard where Gurbachan Kaur was attacked. This discrepancy in the evidence is not at all on a material point to be taken serious note of. When Dharam Pal and others were being attacked in the room, Gurbachan Kaur and her son Gurmit Singh were present in their room and they came out in the courtyard where Gurbachan Kaur was attacked.
6. It has been argueci by learned Counsel for the appellant that Gurbachan Kaur injured was the independent witness and on account of non-production of Gurbachan Kaur, an inference adverse to the prosecution should be drawn. This contention again cannot be accepted. Out of three injured prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has produced two, namely Dharam Pal and Maya Devi. The evidence of Gurbachan Kaur in such circumstances would have simply multiplied the evidence and was not likely to unfold the prosecution case any further. No adverse inference against the prosecution in such circumstances can be drawn.
7. The evidence of Dharam Pal and Maya Devi prosecution witnesses gets corroboration from the medical evidence. P.W. 7 Dr. S.P. Singh Sohal medically examined Sonu. He also conducted, post-mortem. The following injuries were found on Sonu, a male child:
1. An incised wound 16 x 4cm. on the back obliquely placed extending from the right iliac crest to the left buttock; left hip bone was completely cut;
2. An incised wound 17 cms. x 1 1/2 cm. on the right side of the head, 6 cm. above the right ear; bones underneath i.e. right parietal and occipital were cut through and through, underneath brain membranes and brain matter were cut;
3. An incised wound 9 cm. x 3 cm. on the right side of the face, just lateral to the outer angle of right eye, extending from the forehead to the right mandible;
4. An incised scratch 13 cm. lying obliquely on the back extending from right side of neck to the left renal angle;
On dissection of injury No. 2, brain membranes were cut and brain underneath was also cut; there were clots present over the surface of the brain; all these injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon.
According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of extensive injury to brain accompanied with fractures which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Exhibit PJ is the copy of the post-mortem report. Sonu was aged about 1 1/4 years. P.W. 16 Dr. Manjit Singh Bal medically examined Gurbachan Kaur on Aug. 11, 1983, at 1 p.m. and found the following, four injuries:
1. Incised wound 8 x 2 cm. on the scalp on left side of mid-line 11 cm. from middle of left eyebrow and 11 cm. from left ear. The wound was bleeding and depth not probed
2. Incised wound 9 x 0.25 cm. on the left lateral aspect of neck placed antero-posteriorly. Wound was skin deep.
3. Incised wound 13 x 8 cm. on the right shoulder bleeding profusely. Depth not probed.
4. Incised wound 3 cm. x 0.25 cm. on the dorsum of left hand over the matacarpal bone of thumb.
All the injuries were caused within a duration of six hours. On receipt of X-ray report, injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were declared grievous. She was operated upon. Exhibit PO is the copy of the medico-legal report. On the same day at 1.45 p.m., Dharam Pal Singh was, examined and the following three injuries, were found:
1. Incised wound 3 x 2 cm. placed horizontally on the lateral aspect of upper one-half of left arm. Bleeding present, depth not probed.
2. Incised wound 18 x 3 cm. on the right hand extending on palmer aspect from distal part of thenor eminence going obliquely upto proximal phalynx of ring finger, amputating the thumb completely. The wound was bleeding.
3. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm. on the scalp placed vertically 10 cm. from root of nose.
Injury No. 2 was declared grievous. All the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon within a duration of six hours. Exhibit PQ is the copy of the medico-legal report. He was operated upon. Maya Devi was also examined by the doctor at 1.25 p.m. and the following four injuries were found:
1. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. on the dorsum of left foot skin deep, bleeding present.
2. Incised wound 6.5 x 1 cm. on the top of left side of heads cm. from left ear and 15 cm. from left eyebrow. The wound was bleeding, depth not probed
3. Incised wound on the medial aspect of left forearm at its lower end 13 cm. encircling the forearm and amputating the hand completely except a tag of skin 1.25 cm. on the lateral side, 16 cm. below the left elbow joint.
4. Incised wound 12 cm. encircling the right wrist joint except at its lateral aspect. Hand was completely amputated except a tag of skin in the lateral aspect.
She was also operated upon. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were declared grievous. Exhibit PR is the copy of the medico-legal report. Other doctors were also produced who operated upon the injured. However, it is not necessary to refer to their evidence.
8. The medical evidence as referred to above fully corroborates the evidence of Dharam Pal and Maya Devi.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has not produced any evidence of motive for the accused to Commit the crime. In murder case, one always looks for the motive for commission of such a heinous crime. Proof of motive generally lends corroboration to the prosecution case. However, absence of motive or non-proof of motive does not always create doubt on the prosecution case if the evidence produced is otherwise considered reliable and trustworthy. The motive was suggested in the first information report that Dharam Pal Singh P.W. was having illicit relations with the wife of .Khazan Singh and it was on that account that Khazan Singh, who was also a tenant in the said house had left the same. In the absence of evidence of Gurmit Singh at whose instance the first information report was recorded, the facts mentioned in the first information report cannot be taken notice of. Thus, this would be a case where the prosecution has not proved any motive. However, as already noticed above, the prosecution story is not to be dubbed as doubtful on that account.
10. While referring to the evidence of Maya Devi P.W. 15, it has been argued that there was no ill-will with the accused party and thus there was nothing for the accused to attack them, As already noticed above, Maya Devi may not be aware of the alleged motive. Furthermore, motive is also a thing which is known to the accused. The prosecution case cannot be thrown out on that account.
11. It has to been argued that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of Sonu, an infant child; and this offence under Section 302, I.P.C. will not be made out, This contention has no merit. Maya Devi was holding the child in her lap. When she and her child Sonu were attacked, it was not a case of single blow which accidentally hit Sonu though directed towards Maya Devi As noticed above, as many as four incised wounds were caused to Sonu from where a fair indication is available that the accused intended to kill Sonu and the Sessions Judge-was thus right in recording conviction under Section 302, I.P.C.
12. The evidence of Dharam Pal and Maya Devi eye-witnesses was also criticised on the ground that their statements were not promptly recorded by the Investigating Officer on the day first information report was; prepared. This contention again has no merit. Both Dharam Pal and Maya Devi on reaching the hospital became unconscious. It was only on the following day that Dharam Pal was declared fit to make the statement i.e. his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Maya Devi was declared fit to make statement on Aug. 14, 1983 and her statement was recorded on that day. There is ho force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that on account of this delay, these two witnesses had no other option but to toe the line of Gurmit Singh who had earlier reported the matter to the police. As already noticed above, Dharam Pal and Maya Devi both injured P.Ws. are parents of Sonu deceased. They will not shield the real culprit to involve an innocent persons as accused in the case. Khazan Singh was earlier a tenant in the said house as deposed by Maya Devi P.W. 15 and was thus known. Thamman Singh is brother of Khazan Singh. Thus, there is no question of mistaken identity of the accused involved in this case.
13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge are maintained while dismissing the appeal.