Gupal Bahadur vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted on the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of Malkiat Singh alias Kala and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides a fine of Rs. 1,000/ on in default of payment thereof, to further suffer six months'' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge Faridkot, vide his judgment and order dated 18.2.1987. Feeling aggrieved against the above referred orders of conviction and sentence, he has come up in appeal.

In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that Bant Singh (PW3) had taken 10 killas of land on lease in the revenue estate of village Nathuwala Garhi from Maghar Singh. This land was being irrigated from a tubewell situated in that land. Bant Singh along with his son Malkiat Singh used to cultivate this land jointly. Gopal Bahadur accused was an employee of aforesaid Maghar Singh and resided at the tubewell. On 7th February, 1986, at about 8 a.m., Bant Singh PW along with his son Malkiat Singh deceased started irrigating their land from the said tubewell. At about 12 noon Gopal Bahadur accused started quarrelling with Malkiat Singh. Bant Singh PW raised the alarm upon which Mukand Singh (PW4) was also attracted to the spot from the nearby fields. The accused gave 6/7 blows with a knife to Malkiat Singh victim. Malkiat Singh fell down at the spot. The accused ran away along with his knife. Malkiat Singh was found dead just thereafter by the above referred witnesses. Jaila Singh, Chowkidar was then called and after deputing him to keep guarding the dead body, aforesaid Bant Singh along with Mukand Singh rushed to Police Station Baghapurana and lodged the FIR Ex.PE at 2.30 p.m. with ASI Darshan Singh (PW5). Thereafter, ASI Darshan Singh arrived along with other officials at the place of crime at 4 p.m. He found the dead body of Malkiat Singh lying in the field near the tubewell and prepared the inquest report Ex.PB which was attested by the witnesses. The dead body was entrusted to constables Lachhman Dass and Madan Lal for autopsy vide request Ex.PC. The bloodstained earth was also seized from the spot. The visual site plan Ex.PG of the place of occurrence was also prepared. The accused was found absconding from his house.

The autopsy on the dead body of Malkiat Singh was conducted by Dr. Gurmel Singh (PW1) on 8th February, 1986, at 9.30 a.m. and found three punctured wounds, three incised wounds and two contusions. The spleen and left kidney was found punctured under injury No. 2 while the left lung was injured under injury No. 4. These two injuries were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The accused continued absconding till February 13, 1986, when he was produced before ASI Darshan Singh by one Tehal Singh on 14th February, 1986. The accused got recovered the bloodstained knife Fx.P1 from the dry fooder (Turi) in the field of Nazar Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PH. It was found stained with human blood by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist vide reports Exhibits PJ and PK respectively. After completion of investigation the appellant was arraigned for trial on such like allegations for the murder of Malkiat Singh.

The trial Court believing the ocular evidence of Bant Singh and Mukand Singh eyewitnesses coupled with the medical evidence and presence of human blood on the knife Ex.P1 convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above while discarding the plea of simple denial and false implication. The accused also produced the aforesaid Tehal Singh as DW1 in support of his version. He stated that he was not produced by him before the police, and that he worked as domestic servant at the house of Maghar Singh. The evidence of this witness also did not find favour with the trial Court.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides perusing the records.

The learned Counsel for the appellant tried to create doubt about the culpability of the appellant on the basis of applications Exhibits DA, DB and DC addressed to the Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of Punjab and to the Primer Minister of India, respectively. Puran Singh son of Maghar Singh has secured Kala Singh in his grip while his servant Gopal Bahadur accused had given a knife blow on the right flank, but all the same, these are of no consequence as Bant Singh PW in the FIR Ex.PE lodged by him at 2.30 p.m. at Police Station Baghapurana had not attributed any part to aforesaid Puran Singh, whereas the part attributed to Gopal Bahadur accused in the FIR as well as in the application Ex.DA is consistent. Moreover, the persual of Ex.DB shows that Bant Singh is complaining to the Chief Minister, Punjab, against the conduct of the investigations in not taking any action against aforesaid Puran Singh son of Maghar Singh landlord. The perusal of Ex.DC shows that Bant Singh had complained to the Prime Minister of India about the highhandedness of his landlord Maghar Singh, the latter''s son Puran Singh and Tehal Singh for threatening him to vacate the land leased to him besides getting a news item published in the newspaper that some terrorists had killed Malkiat Singh. Thus, it appears that Bant Singh PW suspected the complicity of Puran Singh son of Maghar Singh in exhorting his servant Gopal Bahadur accused for committing the murder of his son. Thus these applications are of no consequence in doubting the participation of Gopal Bahadur for the murder of Malkiat Singh deceased.

On the other hand, the presence of Bant Singh, father of the deceased, in his fields at about noon time is acceptable being natural and probable as farmers are usually present in their fields flouring day time. The fields of Mukand Singh PW also fall near the place of occurrence. Thus there is no doubt about his presence at the time of this occurrence. Both these witnesses had consistently deposed that after verbal altercation Gopal Bahadur accused had given 6/7 blows with knife on the person of Malkiat Singh, who had fallen at the spot and was found dead just thereafter. The evidence of Dr. Gurmel Singh PW1 also renders due corroboration to the testimony of both these witnesses as the punctured as well as incised wounds could be caused with the blade of knife Ex.P1 and the blunt weapon injury, with its handle during scaff. For the sake of ready reference, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the nature of injuries observed by Dr. Gurmel Singh PW1 on the dead body of Malkiat Singh during autopsy. This doctor found the following eight injuries on the dead body of Malkiat Singh :

"1. An incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the lateral and palmer aspect of the first metacarpal bone of the left hand. On dissection, clotted blood was present underneath. Underlying muscles were cut.

A punctured wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side of the body just behind the posterior axillary line between the 11th and 12th Rib. Clotted blood was present. On dissection, wound extending medically inwards puncturing the spleen and left kidney. Abdominal cavity was full of blood.

Punctured wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side of the chest in the anterior axillary line over the 8th rib. Clotted blood was present. On dissection wound extended downwards in underneath the skin for 1/2".

A punctured wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side of the chest just below the clavical 3" from the middle line. Clotted blood was present. On dissection, wound extended inwards injuring the left lung. Left chest cavity was full of blood.

An incised wound 11/2 x 3/4" x 1/2" on the front of the left shoulder 3" from the route of the neck. Clotted blood was present. On dissection underlying muscles were cut.

An superficial incised wound 2" x 1/8th" on the left of the check going downwards and slightly outwards. On dissection, clotted blood was present underneath.

A contusion 11/2 x 1/2" on the left side of the face 2" to the left of the chin. On dissection, clotted blood was present underneath.

An abraised contusion 2" x 1/4" on the left side of the scalp over the left temple at the hair line. On dissection, clotted blood was present underneath."

It was not specifically elicited from this doctor whether injuries No. 2 and 4 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, yet all the same the puncturing of spleen and left kidney under injury No. 2 as well as injuring of the left lung under injury No. 4 clearly show that both these injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injures Nos. 1, 5 and 6 could be caused with the grazing of the blade while inflicting injury with a knife, whereas injuries Nos. 3 and 4 could be caused with the blade of the knife used in a stabbing manner. Injuries Nos. 7 and 8 are contusions and could easily be caused on the left side of the face and skull with the handle of the knife during scuffle. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular evidence of Bant Singh and Mukand Singh eyewitnesses regarding the weapon of offence especially when Dr. Gurmel Singh (PW1) had stated that even the punctured incised wounds could be caused with the blade of the knife. Ex.P1 as its blunt side is also sharp being angulated.

The prompt lodging of the FIR by Bant Singh PW also lends the assurance to his testimony in particular and to the case of the prosecution as a whole because the facts contained therein are substantially the same as deposed by these witnesses at the trial. The occurrence took place at about 12 noon. Thereafter Bant Singh PW rushed to police Station Baghapurana and lodged the report at 2.30 p.m. after covering a distance of 11 kms. The FIR must have concluded at about 3.15 p.m., and its special report was conveyed to the Judicial Magistrate at Moga by 6 p.m. Moga falls at a distance of 16 kms. from Baghapurana. Under these circumstances, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the FIR was given the final shape after examining the dead body by ASI Darshan Singh. Moreover, in case the FIR had been recorded after examining the dead body then ASI Darshan Singh would have explained the presence of blunt weapon injuries on the dead body of Malkiat Singh, but there is no indication available from the FIR as it is not stated that the accused had hit the victim with the handle side of the knife also. ASI Darshan Singh cannot be said to be interested in the complainant party but appears to have conducted the investigation in an impartial manner as he had not fallen prey to the persuation of Bant Singh in implicating Puran Singh son of Maghar Singh Malkiat Singh at the latter stage of the investigation. Under these circumstances, the testimony of ASI Darshan Singh alone is sufficient to prove the recovery of knife Exhibit P1 in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused.

Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant tried to make out that under the circumstances of the case the appellant would at the most be guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Wazir Chand and others, 1978(1) Supreme Court Cases 130 and Mulkuri Damodara Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 CAR 359. In Wazir Chand''s case (supra) Parshottam Lal deceased had suffered four injuries with knife out of which only injury No. 1 was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, whereas Wazir Chand and Joginder Singh accused had suffered six and three injuries respectively. Under these circumstances it was held to be a case of sudden fight falling under Section 4 to Section 300, IPC. Whereas, in the case in hand the accused had not suffered any injury at all but on the other hand, he has given as many as eight injuries to the victim, out of which, two injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Although it is case of sudden flareup but all the same the victim being unarmed and accused having taken undue advantage besides acting in a cruel manner by causing as many as eight injuries on the vital portion of the body like chest and abdomen clearly shows that he intended to cause the same type of injuries out of which two injuries were individually found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the act of the accused is fully covered by clause. Thirdly to Section 300 IPC and the trial Court had rightly convicted him for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Malkiat Singh.

The view of the Supreme Court in Mulkuri Damodara Reddy''s case (supra) is of no help to the appellant in the present case as therein all the twenty two injuries on the deceased were located on his legs and hands i.e. on the nonvital portion of the body. Under these circumstances, it was held that the assailants apparently wanted to cripple the victim throughout his life and never intended to kill him. Under these circumstances, the order of conviction of the assaults for the offence under Section 304 art 11 IPC was upheld by the Supreme Court.

For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.