Charan Dass vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.8.1996 of the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby he convicted appellant Charan Dass son of Bhagat Ram u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months.

The prosecution story is unfolded by PW-1 Hans Raj who made a statement before PW-4 Inspector Harbans Singh stating that he is a resident of Village Taiwan. On 3.7.1995, at about 8/9 p.m., he along with his aunt Banti wife of late Girdhari Lal and Makhan son of Mohinder resident of Village Boparari, were going to Phillaur on cycles in connection with some personal work. Banti was sitting on the carrier of complainant''s cycle. When they reached near the site of Baba Singla Dass, they saw Thakar Dass son of Girdhari Lal going ahead of them at a distance of two furlongs on a cycle. He was going to the Society of Village Poadra to attend to his duty. Appellant Charan Dass son of Bhagat Ram armed with an iron handle of a hand-pump and Sucha son of Charna, Adharmi, resident of Poadra, armed with a Kirpan at once emerged from the cluster of trees. They attacked Thakar Dass. Thakar Dass threw away the cycle and ran towards Village Taiwan. After about 40/50 yards from the cluster of trees towards Village Taiwan, Charan Dass and Sucha encircled Thakar Dass and started giving him injuries with iron handle of the hand pump. Injuries were inflicted on Thakar Dass was badly crushed and he fell down on the ground. He raised an alarm. Sucha ran away from the cluster of trees with his Kirpan. Both Sucha and Charan Dass ran away. Thakar Dass succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The motive for the commission of this offence was that about 4 months back, an altercation had taken place between deceased Thakar Dass and appellant Charan Dass and both of them had exchanged blows. The matter was reported to the police. Security proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against them. Appellant Charan Dass kept this in mind and attacked deceased Thakar Dass.

Occurrence had taken place on 3.7.1995 at 8/9 a.m. F.I.R. Ex.PA was recorded on 3.7.1995 at 10.30 a.m. and the special report reached the C.J.M., Jalandhar on 3.7.1995 at 4 p.m.

The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Hans Raj, PW-2 Dr.Mohinder Singh Narang, PW-3 Banti, PW-4 Inspector Harbans Singh and PW-Constable Baldev Singh.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The explanation given by PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh that his scooter went out of order, is only to cover up the delay. In fact, this delay was utilised to falsely implicate the appellant. PW-1 Hans Raj who is a cousin of the deceased and PW- 3 Smt. Banti, the mother of the deceased, are interested witnesses. It is strange that the witnesses though going in the same direction and though had left at the same time, were not going together. As per the prosecution, the deceased was going 2/3 furlongs ahead of the eye-witnesses. The Investigating Officer did not verify from the persons who were employed at a petrol-pump which was nearby the place where the offence was committed. Lastly, the learned counsel has stated that at the most, an offence u/s 304 Part-I I.P.C. is made out. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, , and Ramashraya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (1) ACJ 264 (S.C.): 2001(3) Alt India Criminal LR(S.C.) 26.

Learned counsel for the State has stated that there is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh has adequately explained that when he was going to deliver the F.I.R. to the C.J.M. Jalandhar, his scooter went out of order on the way., Even if the statement of PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh is not believed, one cannot loose sight of the fact that the distance between Police Station Nurmahal and Jalandhar is not less than 25 kms. PW-3 Smt. Banti and PW-1 Hans Raj are natural witnesses. Occurrence had taken place near the village. Deceased was going on a cycle hardly 2/3 furlongs ahead of the eye-witnesses. The witnesses could have easily seen and recognised the assailants from such a short distance. The deceased and the witnesses were not cycling together, as deceased Thakar Dass had to go to Nurmahal, where he was working in a Cooperative Society and PW-3 Smt.Banti along with PW-1 Hans Raj had to go to Phillaur to buy clothes for themselves.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress that there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 3.7.1995 at 8.9. a.m. in the area of Village Taiwan. The distance between Village Taiwan and Police Station Nurmahal is 8 kms. The statement of Hans Raj (PW-1), an eye-witness to the occurrence, was recorded at 9.45 a.m. on the same day i.e. on 3.7.1995 at Village Taiwan by PW-4 Inspector Harbans Singh. Special Report reached the C.J.M., Jalandhar on 3.7.1995 at 4 p.m. The distance between Police Station Nurmahal and Jalandhar is not less than 25 kms. PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh in his affidavit submitted to the Court, stated that while he was going from Nurmahal to Jalandhar on his scooter, near Village Kangiwal, the petrol in his scooter got finished. It took some time to arrange for petrol. Thereafter when he started, the scooter again developed starting-trouble. He got the defect removed and then reached the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate and delivered the special report to the C.J.M., Jalandhar at 4 p.m. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he had to arrange for a Scooter Mechanic to set it right.

Delay in delivery of the special report to the C.J.M., Jalandhar has been adequately explained. Affidavit and statement of PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh is truthful. Even if for argument sake, we do not take the statement of PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh into consideration, still we do not find any delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the special report reaching the Jalandhar. The distance between Village Taiwan and Police Station Nurmahal is 8 kms, and the distance between Police Station Nurmahal and Jalandhar is not less than 25 kms. F.I.R. was completed at 11.00 a.m. and by 4 p.m., copy of the F.I.R. was in the safe hands of the C.J.M.

No worthwhile dent could be made in the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses PW-3 Smt.Banti and PW-1 Hans Raj. They have been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. They have categorically stated that appellant armed with a handle of a hand-pump, came out of the cluster of trees which were towards Village Taiwan. Injuries were inflicted on the person of Thakar Dass with the iron handle of the hand-pump. Injuries were given on the head, arms, legs and back of Thakar Dass. This statement of the witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-2 Dr.Mohinder Singh Narang has stated that in his opinion, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries given on the person of the deceased. He has further stated that injuries No.1,2,3,4,5,8,9 and 11 are possible with handpump handle Ex.P1. Abrasions on the person of the deceased are possible when he fell down.

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased Thakar Dass, Hans Raj (PW-1) and Smt.Banti (PW-3) did not leave together, but in fact, Hans Raj and Smt.Banti were not present at the place of occurrence, if they had left together, then appellant would not have attacked Thakar Dass, some unknown persons seeing Thakar Dass alone committed his murder, does not cut much ice. PW-3 Smt.Banti and PW-1 Hans Raj were only at a distance of 2/3 furlongs behind deceased Thakar Dass. It has come in evidence that deceased had to go to Nurmahal i.e. his place of work and PW- 3 Smt.Banti and PW-1 Hans Raj had to go to Phillaur to purchase clothes. As Thakar Dass and the eyewitnesses had to go in different directions, it is natural that they would not be going together.

Learned counsel for the appellant has finally argued that if at all, the case of the appellant would fall u/s 304 Part-I I.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied on two judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (supra) and Ramashraya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra)., In both these judgments, a sudden quarrel had taken place between accused and the deceased and it was after this quarrel that the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased. In the case in hand, there is no sudden quarrel. Appellant had an altercation with the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence. Proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were pending against the appellant. Deceased and the appellant on the day of occurrence did not have any quarrel and especially at the time when the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased. Deceased was not aware at that moment of time that he was going to be attacked. It was a pre-meditated murder. Appellant came out of the cluster of trees from the side of Village Taiwan and inflicted not less than five injuries on the head and leg of the deceased. Apart from these injuries, seven more injuries were also inflicted on the person of the deceased with the hand-pump handle. Intention of the appellant was clear. Deceased was attacked without even raising a lalkara and several injuries were inflicted on the vital part of the deceased which ultimately extinguished his life at the spot.

We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court.

Appeal is dismissed.