Bhura Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, dated 2-12-1991 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of the brother Gura Singh alias Gamdur Singh and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

In brief facts of the prosecution case are that Sukhdev Kaur wife of Gura Singh (deceased) was sick. On 14-1-1990, Malkiat Kaur and her husband''s brother Bindar Singh came to the house of Gura Singh to enquire about the health of Sukhdev Kaur. At about 7.30 p.m. Malkiat Kaur, Sukhdev Kaur and Bhura Singh were sitting in a room whereas Gura Singh was taking his meals while present outside the room near the hearth. After taking his meals Gura Singh asked his brother Bhura Singh who was lying on a cot to go to his own house. After some time he got up and started striking his head against the wall. Bhura Singh also abused Gura Singh. Then Bhura Singh accused picked up a Tamba from the gate of the cattle shed and gave two blows on the back side of thighs of Malkiat Kaur raised alarm which attracted Gura Singh. Bhura Singh gave a Tamba blow on the head of Gura Singh who fell down and become unconscious. Thereafter Bhura Singh went away along with Tamba. Gura Singh injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Bhagta from where he was taken to Government Medical Collge and Hospital, Faridkot. Gura Singh died after six days of the accurrence in the said hospital as a result of the injuries received by him without regaining consciousness.

The motive for the crime is that Bhura Singh accused used to beat his wife and Gura Singh deceased used to prevent him from doing so and Bhura Singh accused nourished a grudge against the deceased on that appellant was challenged, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

Post-mortem examination revealed no external mark of injury on the dead body of Gura Singh. However, clotted blood was found presention left frontol parietal, and occipital region. On removal of haemotoma two fissured fractures of left parietal bone involving both tables of skull were found present. Extra durai and sub-dural haemotoma was found present. This injury on the head of the deceased in the opinion of the doctor had caused intra-cranial haemorrhage and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The plea taken by the accused in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of complete denial. According to him he was roped in on misplaced suspicion after due deliberations and consultations in connivence with the police. He has, however, not led any evidence in defence.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is an inordinate delay of about 23 hours in lodging the first information report and thus there was ample time for the complainant party to make due deliberations and consultations to implicate the appellant in this case. From the evidence on the record, it is quite patent that after-receipt of the head injury Gura Singh became unconscious and died after six days of the occurrence, without, regaining consciousness. The fore-most anxiety on the part of Malkiat Kaur and other nearer relatives of the deceased was to provide best medical aid to the deceased rather than to immediately rush to the Police Station in order to lodge the report. Since the injured was unconscious, he was referred from Primary Health Centre, Bhagta where he was initially got admitted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for better treatment. In receipt of ruqa SI Gurdev Singh first went to Primary Health Centre, Bhagta to record the statement of the injured who was declared unfit to make such statement. The said SI again went to the Hospital at Faridkot on 15-1-1990 for recording the statement of Gura Singh but Gura Singh was unfit to make a statement. SI Gurdev Singh then recorded the statement of Malkiat Kaur Ex. PF and on its basis formal first information report was subsequently recorded at the Police Station. Malkiat Kaur could not lodge the report with the Police earlier on as she was more concerned with the saftey of the deceased. Her conduct in this regard cannot be said to be inconsistent with the natural human conduct.

The ocular account in this case rests on the testimony of Malkiat Kaur first information and Sukhdev Kaur wife of the deceased. Since the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. inside the house of the deceased, the presence of his wife Sukhdev Kaur and their relation Malkiat Kaur at the spot at the time of the occurrence is quite natural, probable and convincing. The accused was very well known to the two eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case. He had seen the occurrence from close quarters and thus had ample opportunity to identify the accused at the time of the main occurrence. It is a case of single accused and it seems highly improbable that Malkiat Kaur would exculpate the real culprit and would falsely implicate the accused instead. Testimony of both Malkiat Kaur and Sukhdev Kaur PWs concerning the main occurrence is worthy of reliance.

The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out some improvements alleged to have been made by these two witness during the trial. Malkiat Kaur PW. 3 deposed for the first time that a lantern was also burning near the place of occurrence. However, she did not mention this fact in her statement u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Malkiat Kaur has given plausible explanation concerning the said omission and deposed that the police did not make any such enquiry in this regard from her. Sukhdev Kaur PW. 4 also deposed during the trial that the accused use to beat his wife and Gura Singh used to prevent him from doing so. This fact, does not find mention in the statement of Sukhdev Kaur PW recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These insignificant improvements do not materially affect the veracity of the two eye witnesses.

The learned counsel for the appellant next assailed the prosecution story on the ground that Malkiat Kaur PW. 3 did not get herself medically examined and the ocular account that Bhura Singh had given two Tamba blows on the back of her thighs is not corroborated by any independent circumstances on the record. Malkiat Kaur had given plausible explanation for not getting herself medically examined as she thought that Gura Singh injured would regain consciousness and survive. Apart from that the accused and the deceased were real brothers and in view of the close relationship it seems that the complainant party did not feel the necessity of getting the case registered against the appellant. It is true that Malkiat Kaur mentioned in her statement before the police that Gura Singh gave two Tamba blows on the chest and three blows on the legs of the deceased whereas medical evidence on the record shows no injury on the chest and legs of the deceased. Malkiat Kaur explained that these blows did not actually hit Gura Singh deceased, rather these blows hit the ground. The medical evidence read as a whole lends independent corroboration to the ocular account and shows that the deceased died as a result of head injury received by him at the hands of the appellant with a Tamba.

Since the death of the deceased took place because of single head injury received by the deceased at the hands of the appellant who was armed with the Tamba (blunt weapon), on the spur of the moment and without any pre-meditation, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant u/s 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, and his conviction is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is excessive. Taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case particularly the close relationship of the accused and the deceased and the fact that the occurrence took place all of a sudden without pre-meditation and was a result of single blow received by the deceased on his head at the hands of the appellant, as, well as the fact that the appellant has already undergone agony of trial for about two years, before the trial Court, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for eight years to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The sentence of fine and in default thereof is, however, maintained.

Except with this modification, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.