Chanan Ram vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—Chanan Ram appellant was brought to trial for the murder of his son Gurmel Singh. He was found guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Gurmel Singh (now deceased) separated from his father Chanan Ram about 10 years ago. They two lived in separate houses opposite to each other. When they were living jointly, a water pump had been installed in front of their house. About two months prior to the present occurrence, the accused objected to the drawing of water by the deceased from that water pump. The accused used to abuse the deceased and his family members while in a drunken brawl. The prosecution story goes that on the fateful night, i.e. on 9th June, 1974 at about 11 P.M. the deceased returned to his house after jagrata. His wife Amro served meals to him and his daughter Joginder Kaur. The accused, who was then present in his house, started abusing the deceased. The deceased objected but the accused did not desist from abusing him. The deceased went up to the accused and requested him with folded hands to desist from abusing. The accused plunged his dagger in the chest of the deceased, on receipt of which the latter slumped on the ground. Smt. Amro and her daughter Joginder Kaur immediately rushed to the spot and removed the deceased to their house. On hearing the alarm of the witnesses, Nandu, Prem Nath and Sohan Lal were attracted to the spot to whom they narrated the whole incident and in the meanwhile the accused made good his escape with the dagger. Gurmel Singh expired while being removed from the house of the accused. Joginder Kaur was left to guard the dead body, while Smt. Amro accompanied by Nandu, Prem Nath and Sohan Lal went to Police Station, Phagwara and lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit PA, with Sub Inspector Bal Mukand (P.W. 6). Sub Inspector Bal Mukand went to the house of the deceased and held inquest, Exhibit PL. Thereafter he lifted blood stained earth from outside the house of the accused and prepared the visual plan, Exhibit PG/1. The accused was not found in his house. On the following day of the occurrence, the accused went to Naranjan Singh Sarpanch (P.W.3) and made a confession of having murdered his son by giving him a dagger blow. At about 3.00 P.M. Naranjan Singh Sarpanch produced the accused before the Sub Inspector who formally arrested him. On interrogation the accused made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of blood-stained dagger, Exhibit P. 3, from the specified place of concealment. Blood stained Chaddar, Ex. P. 2 and shirt, Ex. P1 worn by the accused, were also taken into possession vide Memo Exhibit PF/1. Vide reports, Exhibits PN and PN/1 of the Chemical Examined and the Serologist respectively, earth etc. and Banyan were found stained with human blood.

Dr. Indra Khosla (P.W. 5) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurmel Singh on 10th June, 1974 at 11.00 A.M. found the following injury:--

Incised wound of about 1 1/4" x " x 3" deep in left 5th intercostal space parallel to the ribs. It was about 3" lateral to the mid-line and just below and middle to the left nipple.

According to the doctor, all the other organs were healthy, except heart, Heart was injured under the injury near its apex. Stomatch contained about 3 ounces of semi-digested food. The doctor opined that death occurred as a result of shock and haemorrhage, resulting from the injury which caused extensive damage to the heart. The said injury being ante-mortem, in the opinion of the doctor, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was opined to be instantaneous, and the time that elapsed, according to her, between death and post mortem was about 12 hours. After necessary investigation, the accused was challaned and committed.

At the trial, Smt. Amro (P.W. 1) and Joginder Kaur (P.W. 2) gave the eye-witness account of the occurrence. Naranjan Singh Sarpanch (P.W. 3) besides deposing to his having produced the appellant before the Sub Inspector, also deposed to the confessional statement made by the appellant before him. Sub Inspector Bal Mukand (P.W. 6) deposed to the investigation part of the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is not very material.

The appellant when examined u/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code, denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded his false complicity, due to enemity with the deceased. He however, led no evidence in defence.

The learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on the basis of the material placed before him, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated. Hence, the present appeal at his instance

The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of Smt. Amro (P.W. 1), and Joginder Kaur (P.W. 2), the two eye-witnesses. The learned counsel, Shri R.K. Garg, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant, argued that neither of the two witnesses saw the occurrence and they had projected themselves as eye-witnesses merely on account of their interest in the deceased and enemity towards the appellant. The learned counsel sought support for his contention by citing some discrepancies and contradictions in their statements. Smt. Amro stated that the appellant had gone inside to fetch a dagger, whereas according to Joginder Kaur the dagger was already in the hand of the appellant. Smt. Amro stated that she had followed the deceased when he was approaching the appellant, while Joginder Kaur stated that both of them kept sitting in their Louse, and had witnessed the occurrence from there. The said discrepancies are of minor nature and the same are likely to occur in the statements of even truthful witnesses After a lapse of long period from the date of occurrence till his defence was recorded at the trial, it is quite possible for the witnesses to forget those kinds of little details. It is not disputed that the house of the deceased is in front of the house of the appellant. The witnesses are consistent in their statements that the place of occurrence was quite visible from inside their house. The electric light was also on at the alleged time of occurrence and as such there could be no mistaken identity of the appellant. Immediately after the occurrence, Nandu, Prem Nath and Sohan Lal came to the spot and Amro and her daughter Joginder Kaur narrated the incident to them. Smt. Amro went to the Police Station. Phagwara and lodged the First Information Report. Exhibit PA, at 2.30 A.M. on 10th June, 1974. About the spontaneity and promptitude in lodging the first information report there can be no doubt. The conduct of the eye witnesses at the alleged time of occurrence and thereafter is immune from any criticism Hence the contention advanced by the learned counsel, to our mind, lacks merit.

So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witnesses were interested in the deceased being his wife and daughter and inimical towards the appellant and that on that score their testimony does not deserve to be relied upon is concerned, it is no doubt true that both the eye witnesses are very closely connected, with the deceased and also must be taken to be sharing the animus of the deceased against the appellant, but that circumstance by itself is not sufficient to brand their testimony as unreliable. The testimony of such witnesses has to be judged like that of any other witness on the touchstone of probability, their presence at the place of occurrence and their testimony being consistent with the attending circumstances of the case. The presence of these witnesses with the deceased at the time of occurrence can neither be termed unnatural nor was devoid of possibility as the learned counsel sought to paint. Both these witnesses have given a very cogent and consistent account of the occurrence. The defence had not been able to bring out any infirmity whatsoever in their testimony in the cross-examination. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that both the eye-witnesses are trustworthy and their testimony is wholly reliable.

On an overall appraisal of the testimony of these witnesses, we are inclined to place implicit reliance on their word. Their testimony receives further corroboration from the medical evidence, the recovery of blood-stained earth from outside the house of the appellant, the recovery of blood-stained dagger, Exhibit P. 1, at the instance of the appellant and also from the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before Naranjan Singh Sarpanch, P.W. The version given by Naranjan Singh Sarpanch (P.W. 3) regarding the extra-judicial confession made to him by the appellant of having murdered his son, and the subsequent production of the appellant before the police on the following day of the occurrence, appears to be wholly worthy of acceptance. No animus could even be suggested to this witness. Am attempt to raise some dust that Naranjan Singh Sardance was in any way a convenient witness of the police has wholly failed. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the forthight testimony of Naranjan Singh Sarpanch regarding the confession made to him by the appellant. It has been authoritatively held by their Lordships in Ram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, that an extra-judicial confession to a person who has no reason to state falsely, is a very strong link in the chain of prosecution evidence when it stands corroborated by other circumstances as well.

As far the defence version that Amaru son of Preetu had abducted Jogindero P.W. and as such they were inimical towards the deceased and they were responsible for his murder, is not borne out by the evidence or the circumstances of the case and appears to have been put forth under the strain of necessity. We are of the view that there is no merit in the plea taken by the appellant.

For the reasons stated, we find no merit in this appeal and hence dismiss the same.

B.S. Dhillon, J.

I agree.