Dalip Singh vs The State of Haryana

K.S. Garewal, J.—Dalip Singh has filed this appeal to challenge his conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal who sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four and a half years vide judgment dated August 4, 1994 for causing death of his wife Krishna @ Babli.

2.The prosecution case against Dalip Singh was that he was married to Krishna but had strained relations with her. On October 12, 1989 Krishna had accompanied her brother Kanhiya Lal and Kanhiya Lal''s mother-in-law and brother-in-law to visit the peer at Pucca Pul near Madhuban. Krishna did not take her husband''s permission to visit that place. Krishna returned at about 8 PM on the same evening and came to her mother Rani''s house. Dalip Singh was also present there. Krishna expressed apprehension that she may be beaten by Dalip Singh when she goes to his room. Rani persuaded Krishna to accompany Dalip Singh. Shortly thereafter Kanhiya Lal took Krishna to Dalip Singh''s room, stayed there for some time and returned home at 11 PM. During the night Dalip Singh and Krishna had a quarrel which continued till the morning of October 13. Rani went to the room at 4 AM and in her presence Dalip Singh struck Krishna with a lathi on her neck, arm, face and nose. A little later at about 8 AM when Kanhiya Lal reached that place Dalip Singh ran away. Rani and Kanhiya Lal took Krishna to the civil hospital, Panipat where she was given treatment but Krishna succumbed to her injuries on October 14 at 1.15 AM.

Before her death Krishna had been medico legally examined by Dr. Ajay Verma at 7.35 PM on October 13, who found the following injuries on her person.

"1. Swelling in the left upper eye-lid. Advised X-ray Skull/anterior-posterior and lateral view.

Two parallel contusion marks about 7 cm x 1 cm on the lateral surface of elbow and upper 1/3rd of left forearm.

Two parallel contusion marks about 8 cm x 1 cm lying oblique on the lateral surface of left elbow.

Another vertical contusion mark 8 cm x 0.5 cm on the lower 1/3rd of anterior surface of left leg.

Gynae consultation to rule out injury to private part."

After Krishna''s death post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. SC Pahwa on October 14 at 1 PM and the following injuries were recorded:-

"1. A diffused swelling on left upper eye-lid.

Two parallel contusion marks dark red in colour 7 cm x 1 cm each on the lateral surface of left elbow and extending into the upper 1/3 of left forearm. Clotted blood was present.

Two parallel contusion mark dark red in colour 8 cm x 1 cm each situated obliquely on the lateral surface of left elbow just above the wound No. 2.

Another vertical contusion mark 8 cm x .5 cm dark red in colour on the lower 1/3 of the anterior surface of left leg. Clotted blood seen underneath the skin.

On opening the skull membranes were congested. There was a sub dural haumatone in the left frontal and part of left parietal region.

5.The matter was reported to the police by Kanhiya Lal when his statement was recorded at civil hospital, Panipat on October 13 at 10 PM.

The statement was sent to the police station, Sadar, Panipat where a case was registered at 1.15 AM on October 14, 1989 u/s 304 IPC. Investigation was taken up by the police. The investigating officer prepared the inquest report on the dead body of Krishna and sent it for post-mortem examination. He then visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses. Dalip Singh was arrested on October 15 and a danda was taken into possession from his room. On completion of investigation Dalip Singh was sent up for trial.

At the trial charge was framed against the appellant u/s 304 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. SC Pahwa (PW 3), Rani (PW 6), Kanhiya Lal (PW 7), ASI Sukhdev (PW 11) and Dr. Ajay Verma (PW14). When the appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the prosecution allegations against him. He pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the case as he had stopped giving monthly allowance to his mother-in-law. The trial court accepted the version given by Rani (PW 6) and Kanhiya Lal (PW 7) and came to the conclusion that their evidence could not be discarded simply because they were closely related. The discrepancies in the testimony of these two witnesses were also over looked. The appellant was convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC.

It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that there was a long delay in lodging the FIR, which had not been satisfactorily explained. There were contradictions between the medical evidence and eye witness account. The prosecution version was improbable and was full of discrepancies.

A close examination of the prosecution evidence reveals that Dalip Singh was Krishna''s third husband. She first married to a man in Saharanpur, her second marriage was to a person in Panipat. According to Rani (PW 6) Krishna was married to Dalip Singh about 10 years before the occurrence and they lived in a rented room in house owned by Gura Ditta (Gurdial Singh (PW 4). According to Rani the couple had two children but they had been killed by the accused. On the fateful night Krishna had returned after visiting a peer near Madhuban, where she had gone with her brother Kanhiya Lal, Kanhiya Lal''s mother-in-law and brother-in-law but had not told her husband before going there. Therefore, Krishna felt an apprehension that she may be beaten up when she returned to the appellant. According to Rani, Kanhiya Lal took Krishna to the rented room and returned at about 11 PM after taking his meals. The appellant quarrelled with Krishna at about 4 AM. Rani also stated that she had gone to the room at about 12 mid night and had pacified Dalip Singh and Krishna. She again visited the room at about 4 AM and in her presence Dalip Singh hit Krishna with a lathi.

According to Kanhiya Lal he along with his mother Rani went to his sister''s room on the morning of October 13 at 6 AM and found that husband and wife were having wordy fight. In their presence Dalip Singh hit Krishna @ Babli with a danda on her arm, he also boxed her in the belly and gave more danda blows on her left leg as well as boxed her on her face. Thereafter, Dalip Singh ran away injured Krishna was evacuated to the hospital where she was treated.

The rented room was owned by Gurdial Singh (PW 4) who testified that on that night of October 13, 1998 (sic) Dalip Singh and his wife slept peacefully in the room. In the morning they had a minor quarrel. On hearing the quarrel Gurdial Singh told them that it was no use quarrelling. Thereafter, Gurdial Singh went away to attend to his duties in industrial area, Panipat. Similarly, Sikandar Lal (PW 5) who was a tenant of Gurdial Singh testified that on the morning of October 14 (the witness gave the wrong date) Dalip Singh''s mother-in-law and brother-in-law had taken the deceased to the civil hospital but in his presence the accused had not given any beatings to the deceased. Both Gurdial Singh (PW 4) and Sikandar Lal (PW 5) had been declared hostile and cross-examined.

The evidence of Gurdial Singh and Sikandar Lal may not directly establish that Dalip Singh had beaten his wife. Their evidence certainly does establish that Dalip Singh and Krishna had spent the night together in their rented room. In the morning Krishna was taken to the hospital in an injured condition. Therefore, the evidence of Gurdial Singh and Sikandar Lal does corroborate what Rani and Kanhiya Lal had testified as regards evacuation of Krishna in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Panipat.

Dr. Ajay Verma (PW 14) on examination of Krishna at 7.35 PM found a swelling on the left upper eye lid, two parallel contusions and a verticle contusion on left leg. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation. Dr. SC Pahwa (PW 3) on post-mortem examination found frothing through nostrils and a defused swelling on left upper eye lid. On opening of the skull, membranes were found congested and there was sub dural haematoma in the left frontal part of left parietal region. Thorax walls, ribs and cartilages were healthy, pleura was healthy, larynx and trachea were congested and froth was seen. Right and left lungs were congested and frothing was seen. Both chambers of the heart contained dark coloured blood. Viscera was sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. Cause of death was to be ascertained after the report of the chemical analysis.

Dr. O.P. Gogia (PW 15) gave the cause of death after perusing the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban which was to the effect that death was not due to poison but due to head injury i.e. injury No. 5 mentioned in the post-mortem report. The witness further testified that as per the medico legal report Krishna was unconscious and X-ray of skull anterior posterior as well as lateral had been advised. This indicated that there was head injury.

The prosecution has relied upon eye witness account of four witnesses, two of the witnesses turned hostile but two namely Rani and Kanhiya Lal gave the ocular version of the incident. The prosecution depends upon the circumstantial evidence like the failure of the deceased to take permission to visit the peer on October 12 and her fear that her husband would beat her. The deceased being persuaded to return to her husband and spending the night with him in the rented room. This fact has also been corroborated by Gurdial Singh and Sikandar Lal regarding the deceased being evacuated in the morning in an unconscious condition to civil hospital where she was given treatment but she succumbed to her head injury on October 14 at 1.15 AM. The Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination found sub dural haematoma in the left frontal part of left parietal region. There was also frothing from the nostrils and post-mortem revealed that larynx and trachea and both the lungs were congested and frothing was seen. The injuries observed by Dr. Ajay Verma and Dr. SC Pahwa indicate that the deceased was given a sound thrashing with a blunt weapon.

Therefore, even though there appear to be some discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of Rani and Kanhiya Lal and indeed these have been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it must be held that in view of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and medical evidence indicated above, the learned trial court had come to the correct conclusion and found the appellant guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is upheld. The appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.