Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

S. D. Bajaj, J.

Around 8.30 A.M. on 29th December, 1986 Swaran Singh father of deceased Smt. Amrik Kaur alias Amriko made the following statement to S.I. Gian Chand of Police Post Verka in Amritsar district of Punjab State in respect of the occurrence. "I am a resident of Nangal Panuan and do labour work. About 20 years back, my daughter Amrik Kaur alias Amriko was married to Darshan Singh son of Shamir Singh, Mazhbi, resident of Fatehgarh Shukar Chak, Police Station Sadar Amritsar Five children in all were born from the womb of Amrik Kaur and loins of Darshan Singh and the sixth child was to be born in these days. Yesterday on 28th December, 1986, in the evening, my brother Charan Singh and I had gone to the house of Amrik Kaur at village Fatehgarh Shukar Chak in order, to see her. My daughter Amrik Kaur told that her husband Darshan Singh used to quarrel with her. At night any Juwai (soninlaw) Darshan Singh was :present at house. We advised him not to quarrel. My daughter Amrik Kaur, My Dohta (daughter''s son) Pargat Singh, my soninlaw Darshan Singh, other small children and I slept in the residential house of my daughter Amrik Kaur. My brother Charan Singh slept with my Kuram (daughter''s fatherinlaw) Shamir Singh. Today, at about 5/5.30 A.M. my soninlaw Darshan Singh got up from the cot and picked up a Loon Ghotna lying nearby and gave blows with it on the head of my daughter Amrik Kaur who was sleeping, on a cot, which hit on the left side of her head at two places in the middle of head and on the left car. She raised much hue and cry. My Dotra Pargat Singh and I took Darshan Singh into our grips. On hearing the alarm, my brother Charan Singh came to the spot. We all the three overpowered Darshan Singh at the spot and snatched the loon ghotna from him. I saw my daughter Amrik Kaur who had breathed her last. Leaving my brother Charan Singh and Pargat Singh at the spot. I have come to P. S. Verka to lodge a report. Action may be taken. My daughter Amrik Kaur told me in the evening that Darshan Singh used to beat her without any rhyme and reason. Last night, we advised him not to harass her. Due to this grudge, my soninlaw Darshan Singh has killed my daughter.

On being charged With the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code solitary accused Darshan Singh pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 30th October, 1987 learned trial court convicted accused Darshan Singh of the commission of both the offences aforesaid. For his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code convicted accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 5000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. For his conviction under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of having caused the death of full term male child in the womb of his wife Smt. Amrik Kaur deceased, the accused was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and ordered to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved therefrom accused Darshan Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 39DB of 1988 in this Court.

We have heard Shri J. S. Dhillon, Advocate, amicus curiae,. for the appellant, Shri D. N. Rampal, Advocate for the State and have. carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

The eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by the father of the deceased and. fatherinlaw of the accused named Swaran Singh in the First Information Report was fully adhered to by him in the course of his deposition in court as P.W. 2. The witness stated, "Amrik Kaur since deceased was my daughter. She was married to Darshan Singh, accused now present in court today, about 20 years back. Out of the said wedlock five children were born to Amrik Kaur. My Amrik, Kaur. My daughter Amrik Kaur in a family way during the days of occurrence, and she was to deliver that child within, a day or two of the occurrence. About nine months back I alongwith my brother Charan Singh had gone to see my daughter Amrik Kaur at her husband''s village Fatehgarh Shukar Chak. We reached the house of the accused that evening at about 6 P.M. :At that time Darshan Singh accused was quarrelling with his wife Amrik Kaur. We requested the accused not to quarrel with his wife. During the night I slept near my daughter and soninlaw Darshan Singh accused. Their children were also lying nearby in the same room. My brother Charan Singh slept with the fatherinlaw of Amrik Kaur in a separate room. At about 5 or 5.30 A.M. on the following morning the accused picked up that ghotna and gave four or five blows with that ghotna on the head of Amrik Kaur while she was lying on a cot. I raised alarm hearing which Pargat Singh son of Darshan Singh accused and my brother Charan Singh witnessed the occurrence. Myself and Pargat Singh caught hold I of Darshan Singh accused and were able to snatch the ghotna from him which was subsequently handed over to Charan Singh P.W. We then went near Amrik Kaur and found that she had already died.

Pargat Singh P.W. 3 son of the accused through the womb of the deceased, however, turned hostile to the prosecution and did not stand by the version given out by him to the police of his having seen the accused inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased with a `Loon Ghotna''. In spite of it, the witness stood by the earlier and later part of the occurrence narrated by Swaran Singh P.W. 2 and stated, "I am the eldest child whereas my sisters and brother are younger to me. My youngest sister is about three or four years old. My younger brother about 12 years, old and my sister is aged 7 or 8 years, whereas my second sister is four of five years old. Darshan Singh accused now present in court today is my father. He used to maltreat my mother and also used to give her beatings sometimes. My mother used to work as a labourer and from earning she used to bring us up. About nine months back my maternal grandfather and his brother Charan Singh P.W. had come to our village to us. In my presence my mother had complained to my grandfather that Darshan Singh her husband maltreats her My maternal grandfather and his brother Charan Singh tried to persuade the accused that he should not give beatings to my mother or to maltreat her. Swaran Singh my grandfather. myself, my parents and my other brother and sisters slept in one room during the night whereas Charan Singh, P.W. and my grandfather slept in the adjoiningroom. My maternal grandfather Swaran Singh woke me up on the next morning..". When I got up my maternal grandfather had caught hold of my father. I had however seen ghotna for grinding salt in the hands of my father at the time when I woke up."

Charan Singh P.W. 4 also stood by Swaran Singh P.W. 2 and corroborated his version in regard to the part of occurrence allegedly when by him. The witness asserted, "About nine months back, I along with my brother Swaran Singh, P.W. went to the village of the accused too meet his wife Amrik Kaur who is my niece (since deceased). We reached their house at about 5 P.M. At that time Amrik Kaur complained to us about the maltreatment meted out to her by her husband Darshan Singh, accused. Myself and my brother Swaran Singh requested the accused Darshan Singh not to misbehave with Amrik Kaur. We stayed there during the night. I along with father of Darshan Singh, accused Kashmir Singh slept in one room whereas Swaran Singh P.W., the accused and the deceased and their children slept in the adjoining room. At about 5 or 5.30 A.M. on the following morning on hearing the raula from the adjoining room went there and at that time I saw Swaran Singh and Pargat Singh, P.Ws. catching. hold of Darshan Singh, accused. At that time Amrik Kaur was lying on the cot. By the time I went inside the room where the occurrence took place, Amrik Kaur had already received the injuries. I also caught hold of Darshan Singh, accused. I snatched the ghotna from the hands of the accused. We then went near Amrik Kaur and found that she was already dead.

Eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by Swaran Singh P.W. 2 also gets support from the statement of Dr. Vasdev Sharma P.W. 1 and the contents of postmortem report Exhibit PA. Relevant portion reads, "At this stage a sealed parcel bearing the seal of the Chemical Examiner was opened and ghotna Exhibit P. 1 was taken out of it and shown to, the witness who stated that all the five injuries on the deceased could be caused with ghotna Ex. P.1. Uterus contained a full term male baby. The. death in my opinion was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to the head and brain which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." From the evidence aforesaid both the charges. under sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code appear to have been brought home to the accusedappellant beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt. Finding of guilty returned by the learned trial court against the accusedappellant on both these counts is, therefore, affirmed. The sentence awarded to him on both these counts by the learned trial court is also confirmed.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the police post at Verka was hardly 2 kms away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence having been taken place at 5.30 A.M. there was an inordinate delay of three hours in reporting the matter to the police. During this period the information of alleged criminal activity could be embellished. In Swaran Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "Mere delay in despatch of the FIR is not circumstances which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety." Even otherwise also the argument is completely bereft of any merit therein. Deceased was admittedly the mother of five children already and carrying, a sixth one in her womb. Before approaching the Police, her father Swaran Singh had obviously to arrange for the looking after of these children; more so when their father had already killed their mother in their very presence and they were aghast on that score. Furthermore, Swaran Singh was also to ensure, before leaving for the Police Post that through his natural love and affection his soninlaw in accused Darshan Singh was not able to win over his children and destroy all evidence of the crime attributed to him, with their help, in the absence of the witness. The delay (if any) thus gets. fully explained for the reasons aforesaid.

Secondly it was urged that the alleged motive for the crime was inadequate. It is not so soninlaw in accusedappellant knew that he was being defamed in his own house by his wife in the presence of his father before his fatherinlaw as also the younger brother of his fatherinlaw and had to eat the humble pie and get over the blemish by promising better behaviour towards his wife to all of them by giving up the use of violence against her in future. Loud thinking done on this matter during the intervening night presumably prepared him for committing the crime attributed to him early morning on the following day. Even otherwise also in view of the independent testimony relied upon by the learned trial court, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. If the eye witnesses are relied upon. the mere absence of a strong motive for committing murder or the mode of its commission is of no assistance to the accused. Proof of motive satisfied the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship but its absence only demands deeper forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof and courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists.

Thirdly it was asserted that all the three witnesses examined by the prosecutions the accusedappellant are interested relation witnesses and should, therefore, ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial court for basing the conviction of the accused on their testimony. This argument again is wholly without merit. Since deceased Amrik Kaur alias Amrik Kaur was at the mature stage of her pregnancy it was natural for her father to visit her in her matrimonial home to enquire about her health and welfare. Presence of Swaran Singh P.W. 2 and Charan Singh P.W. 4 in the house of the accused at the time of the occurrence was thus natural.

Lastly it was urged that the weapon of offence allegedly used by the accused while giving injuries to the deceased was a `Loon Ghotna'' only and, therefore, the accused cannot be ascribed the intention to cause the death of the deceased therewith. The argument again is wholly without merit. Several repeated blows inflicted therewith by the accused on the head of the deceased certainly bring the case under clause 3rdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which reads :

"300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

xx XX xx xx xx

3rdly If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or"

xx xx xv xx xx

For the reasons given above Criminal Appeal filed by accused appellant gets wholly bereft of any merit therein and is accordingly dismissed.