Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999
Date of decision : 4.7.2008
Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
S. D. ANAND, J.
The appellant was convicted by then learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Mansa ( hereinafter referred to as the Trial Judge) for an
offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant was directed to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two
months.
2. Gian Kaur deceased was joint in residence with her five sons
including PW-5 Hargobind Singh. The Rasta in front of their house leads to
Gurudwara Titarsar. There is a culvert enroute and towards the West of
culvert, there is a pond.
3. On 5.8.1995, at about 7.00 P.M. Appellant Sukhdev Singh and
the acquitted associate Tar Singh wanted to demolish the culvert. A quarrel
between them on the one hand and Gian Kaur and her son Sukhdev on the
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -2-
****
other hand, ensued. Gian Kaur had the apprehension that demolition of
culvert would lead to the flooding of her house. The obstruction offered by
Gian Kaur enraged appellant Sukhdev Singh who felled down her on the
ground by giving a Kahi blow on the left side of her forehead. She was
initially taken to the Civil Hospital, Sardulgarh. Therefrom she was referred
to Civil Hospital, Mansa from where then she was referred to P.G.I.,
Chandigarh, where she died.
4. PW-5 Hargobind and PW-6 Gulab Singh, yet another son of
deceased Gian Kaur, had witnessed the impugned occurrence along with
their brother PW-8 Darshan Singh. The case was investigated by PW-10
Inspector Balbir Singh and PW-11 ASI Paramjit Singh. PW-4 Dr. Dalbir
Singh, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, PGI, Chandigarh had
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gian Kaur and
found the following injuries:-
“1. 10.5 X 0.10 cms partially healed wound with unhealthy
granulation tissues present over the left frontal aspect of
the scalp, starting from the lateral end of left eye brow
going upwards and medially upto 6 cms above the
medial end of left eye brow. Proximal 2 cm of the wound
was gaping for .75 cms and under lying bone was
exposed. Greenish yellowish pus was present over it.
2. Left eye ball was missing from the orbit and inner
surfaces of orbit were having unhealthy granulation
tissues.”
5. He opined that the cause of death “Oedema of brain due to
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -3-
****
laceration of brain, subdural hamatoma extradural haematoma and fracture
of skull following head injuries which were antemortem in nature.”
6. Learned Trial Judge decreed conviction, after disbelieving the
defence plea of innocence.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae
argues that there is want of reliable evidence on the file to prove that there
was any motive for the appellant to have murdered Gian Kaur. He also has
a grievance that the witnesses examined to prove the charge are all sons of
the deceased and their testimony is not corroborated by any independent
evidence. The plea, raised by learned Amicus Curiae in the alternative is
that conviction may be altered to an offence under Section 304 IPC in view
of the fact that the appellant is alleged to have given a single blow which
was not repeated.
8. We do not find any force in pleas advocated on behalf of the
appellant.
9. There is categorical and almost unrebutted evidence that the
appellant Sukhdev Singh did not like the objection taken by Gian Kaur to
the demolition of the culvert by the former. As already noticed, Gian Kaur
had the apprehension that the demolition of the culvert would lead to the
flooding of her house. The present is, thus, a clear case in which Gian
Kaur earned the ire of appellant Sukhdev Singh, who hit her forehead with a
Kahi.
10. Though cases are conceivable in which the prosecution may not
be able to adduce evidence to prove the motive on the part of the accused to
commit the relevant crime but the present is surely not a case of that
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -4-
****
category in view of the fact that there is clinching evidence to indicate that
Sukhdev Singh felt irritated by the obstruction caused by Gian Kaur to
demolition of the culvert by the former and that is precisely what actuated
him to hit her forehead with a Kahi. It cannot, by any stretch of
interpretation, be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove the
motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime for which he stands
convicted.
11. We are unable to accept the proposition that the testimony of
relation witnesses deserves to be ruled out altogether just because they
happen to be relations of the deceased. Concededly though, if the
testimony of relation witnesses is not found to be fully reliable, the Court
would insist upon its corroboration by independent evidence. The
testimony of relation witnesses may be discarded only if it is found that
relations have proved themselves to be unreliable or they have endeavoured
introduction of a false scenario to fix an accused. In the present case, it is
not even the allegation that PW 5 Hargobind and PW-6 Gulab Singh had
any previous score to settle with the appellant or that they have any other
reason on account whereof they would have been inclined to falsely
implicate the appellant. We do not, thus, approve of the view advocated by
the learned Amicus Curiae in the context.
12. There is no law decreeing that a single blow which does not
come to be repeated must invite the applicability of Section 304 IPC. As
held by the Apex Court in Murugan & others Vs. State AIR 2008
Supreme Court 627 “the infliction of a single injury by itself is not a
relevant factor to hold that appellant had no intention to commit the murder
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -5-
****
of the deceased.” In the present case, the appellant gave a blow on forehead
of the deceased which is a vital part of the body and the blow had been
given by Kahi which is a sharp edged weapon. In that view of things, it
cannot be said with any justification, that the appellant had no intention to
commit the murder of the deceased.
13. It is pertinent to notice here that, in the course of statement Ex.
PX, the deceased had attributed a categorical inculpatory role to appellant
Sukhdev Singh. In the course of that statement, she had clearly indicated
that the demolition of culvert would have flooded her house. She also
stated, in the course thereof, that she pleaded with the appellant (and the
acquitted associate of his) to desist from proceeding with the demolition of
the culvert but they did not listen to her. Her statement in respect of seat of
injury( and also the weapon with which it was inflcited) is supported by the
testimony of PW-4 Dr. Dalbir Singh. Therefore, it cannot be denied that
the statement aforesaid had been recorded by the police official, we do not
find any fault with it. Initially, the Police Officer afore-mentioned filed an
application (Ex. PH) before S.M.O., Civil Hospital, Sardulgarh to find out if
the injured was fit to make a statement. The Medical Officer issued a
certification (Ex. PH/1) on 5.8.1995 at 10.15 P.M., that the injured was not
fit to make a statement on account of head injury. Thereafter that Police
Officer again filed an application (Ex. PJ) before the S.M.O., Civil Hospital,
Sardulgarh to give the opinion in the matter of fitness or otherwise of the
injured to make a statement. Again, the Medical Officer certified on
6.8.1995 at 10.00 A.M. that the patient was unfit to make a statement. It
was ultimately when the injured was certified to be fit to make a statement
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -6-
****
that the police officer afore-mentioned recorded her statement Ex. PX. As
there was no immediate danger to death, there was ostensible reason for him
not to insist upon recording of her statement by a Magistrate. Thus, the
contents of Ex. PX add to the ocular evidence to nail the appellant.
14. It also cannot be lost sight of that it was the appellant Sukhdev
Singh who, in pursuance of a disclosure statement, led to the recovery of a
Kahi. It also adds to the woes of the appellant in the context of
accountability for having murdered Mst. Gian Kaur.
15. The testimony of DW-1 Babu Singh and DW-2 Nirmal Singh
does not at all assist the defence plea of innocence. DW-1 Babu Singh
claimed to have been told by Gian Kaur that she had not been able to
identify the appellant. She allegedly furnished the information to Babu
Singh when the latter visited her in the hospital. This witness was a
member panchayat at that point of time. In his own showing, the Panchayat
did not pass any resolution with regard to the innocence of the appellant.
Neither this witness nor the Panchayat moved any application to the higher
authorities against the false implication of the appellant in spite of the fact
that he averred that he belongs to the faction of the appellant. If there was
even an iota of truth in the statement of DW-1 Babu Singh, there is no
reason why he would not have brought this fact to the notice of the higher
police authorities.
16. DW-2 Nirmal Singh also claimed to have visited at Civil
Hospital, Sardulgarh, Civil Hospital, Mansa, and also PGI, Chandigarh. His
statement to the effect that Gian Kaur remained unconscious throughout the
time she remained in the hospitals and that she was not fit to make a
Criminal Appeal No. 522-DB of 1999 -7-
****
statement is falsified by the record as per which Inspector Gurdip Singh
recorded her statement on 11.8.1995 only after she had been declared fit to
make a statement. In the context, we may refer to Ex.PB/1 which is a
certification to the effect that she was fit to make a statement. That
certification was testified to at the trial by PW-3 Dr. R.K. Garg, Emergency
Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa.
17. In the light of the fore-going discussion, we hold that there is
no substance in the appeal.
18. Dismissed.
( S. D. ANAND )
JUDGE
July 04, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
Pka JUDGE