Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 507-DB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No. 1987 of 2002 by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 10.6.2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which he convicted Gurmeet Singh son of Kehar Singh u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 2 years.

The learned trial Court in its wisdom acquitted Jaswinder Singh son of Kehar Singh and Kehar Singh son of Jaimal Singh who were also charged along with the appellant for the commission of the offence. The State has not filed an appeal against their acquittal.

The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Prem Singh son of Mehma Singh Ex.P7 given to ASI Mam Raj in the revenue limits of Village Bhamarsi Buland.

Prem Singh stated, that he is a resident of Village Bur Majra and is an employee of State Bank of India, Sector 18. He has five children. His eldest daughter Kulwinder Kaur was married with Gurmeet Singh son of Kehar Singh in March, 1988. Out of this wedlock two children were born. Gurmeet Singh was working as Driver in Tapa Mandi, District Sangrur where he developed illicit relations with a woman. Kulwinder Kaur came to know about this about 1-1/2 years before the occurrence. She protested and asked her father-in-law Kehar Singh to stop Gurmeet Singh from going around with another woman. Because of this, Gurmeet Singh gave beatings to Kulwinder Kaur several times. About 1-1/2 months before the occurrence, Surjeet Kaur wife of Prem Singh went to meet her daughter Kulwinder Kaur at Village Bir Bhamarsi. In her presence Gurmeet Singh again gave a beating to Kulwinder Kaur and also abused her. Thereafter Prem Singh along with Rajinder Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Mohinder Singh of Village Bir Bhamarsi went to meet his daughter. In their presence Gurmeet Singh maltreated Kulwinder Kaur and abused her and Prem Singh. Prem Singh wanted to take back Kulwinder Kaur, but the respectables of Village Bir Bhamarsi intervened and asked them to leave back Kulwinder Kaur in the house of her in-laws. Jassa Singh, the brother-in-law(Jeth) of Kulwinder Kaur and Kehar Singh her father-in-law also used to beat her. On 23.10.1996 at about 3 p.m. Prem Singh got a telephonic message from his son Gurdeep Singh that Kulwinder Kaur had been killed by giving her a beating by Gurmeet Singh, his elder brother Jassa Singh and his father Kehar Singh, but they stated that Kulwinder Kaur had taken some poisonous substance. Prem Singh along with Gurdeep Singh, Ex-Sarpanch Rajinder Singh, Mohinder Singh Panch and Raghbir Singh son of Chhota Singh all residents of Bur Majra reached Village Bir Bhamarsi. There they saw that Kulwinder Kaur had expired. She was lying in the courtyard. She had injuries on her legs and neck. Prem Singh further stated that his son-in-law Gurmeet Singh along with his brother Jassa Singh and his father Kehar Singh had killed his daughter.

The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr. Bhupinder Singh PW-1, Dr. Jatinder Kumar PW-2, Om Parkash Sachdeva PW-3, Prem Singh PW-4, Harpinder Singh PW-5, Rajinder Singh PW-6, Surjit Kaur PW-7, Gurdeep Singh PW-8, ASI Mam Raj PW-9, ASI Piara Singh PW-10, SI Major Singh PW-11, Constables Jaspal Singh PW-12, Bhupinder Singh PW-13 and HC Ashok Kumar PW-14.

Sat Parkash Principal DW-1, Inderjit Kaur DW-2, Malook Singh DW-3 and Gurbachan Singh DW-4 were examined in defence.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that at the most, the case of the appellant falls u/s 306 I.P.C. It is a case of suicide. There is an unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Occurrence took place on 23.10.1996 and F.I.R. Ex.P7/4 came into existence on 31.10.1996. There is no ligature mark or any injury on the neck of the deceased, though the prosecution witnesses have stated that there were injuries on the person of Kulwinder Kaur. The death is not due to hanging or poison. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P3 has stated that no poison was detected in the contents of the viscera.

Prem Singh PW-4 has made improvements in his statement by stating that the death took place by putting a handkerchief on the mouth of the deceased. Nothing has been stated by him in his statement Ex.P7 regarding the death of his daughter being by suffocation.

The testimony of the sole eye-witness Harpinder Singh PW-5 cannot be believed. Harpinder Singh PW-5 at the time of the occurrence was only seven years old. He had gone to school. Sat Parkash Principal DW-1 has stated in his testimony that the school in which Harpinder Singh PW-5 was studying opens at 9 a.m. and closes at 2.30 p.m. The school is at a distance of 6/7 kms. from Village Bir Bhamarasi where Harpinder Singh PW-5 resides. The school-bus gets the children from the village. It is clear that Harpinder Singh PW-5 on that day had gone to school and he did not witness the occurrence. Statement Ex.DA of Harpinder Singh PW-5 was recorded after 3 months of the occurrence.

The material witnesses i.e. Prem Singh, Mohinder Singh and other Panchayat members were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

Learned Counsel for the State has argued that there is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The occurrence took place on 23.10.1996 at 8 a.m. at Village Bir Bhamarasi. The parents of deceased Kulwinder Kaur were informed. Prem Singh PW-4 along with the Panchayat Members reached the place of occurrence and found Kulwinder Kaur already dead. Though F.I.R. Ex.P7/4 was registered on 31.10.1996 at 5.30 p.m., but we cannot overlook this fact that D.D.R. Ex.P7/5 was recorded on the statement of Prem Singh PW-4 on 23.10.1996. Investigating Officer SI Major Singh PW-11 was throughout cautions and after investigating the case thoroughly, formal F.I.R. Ex.P7/4 was recorded on 31.10.1996 at 5.30 p.m. The testimony of Harpinder Singh PW-5 is trustworthy. He was questioned before his statement was recorded by the learned trial Court.

The material witnesses i.e. Rajinder Singh PW-6, Surjit Kaur PW-7, Gurdeep Singh PW-8 and Harpinder Singh PW-5 have been examined by the prosecution, who have corroborated each other and also get corroboration from the medical evidence.

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

The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the case of the appellant at the most, falls u/s 306 I.P.C. and not u/s 302 I.P.C. In fact, the Investigating Officer SI Major Singh PW-11 initially recorded the F.I.R. u/s 306 I.P.C. and later on it was converted into Section 302 I.P.C.

Going through the statement of Prem Singh PW-4 and the medical evidence, it is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Though there is no ligature mark or injury on the neck, but one thing is clear that the death of Kulwinder Kaur was neither by hanging, nor by taking poisonous substance. Report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P3 has clearly stated, that no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. Prem Singh PW-4 has rightly stated in his testimony that deceased Kulwinder Kaur died due to suffocation when a handkerchief was put on her mouth and she could not breathe.

The motive for the commission of the offence is very strong. Appellant Gurmeet Singh was having illicit relations with a woman called Guddi. This was objected to by the deceased. Appellant Gurmeet Singh and deceased Kulwinder Kaur got married in the year1988. They had two children out of this wedlock and when Guddi came into the life of appellant Gurmeet Singh that trouble started in their house.

There is no improvement in the statement of Prem Singh PW-4. Prem Singh PW-4 has not been confronted with his statement given u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and this statement has gone unrebutted. The testimony of Harpinder Singh PW-5 is trustworthy and inspires confidence. Harpinder Singh PW-5 was seven years old at the time when he gave his testimony before the Court. The learned trial Court put relevant questions to him and thereafter came to a conclusion that he is in a state of mind where he can depose before the Court. Harpinder Singh PW-5 has stated that it was appellant Gurmeet Singh his father who extinguished the life of his mother Kulwinder Kaur as she used to object to appellant''s illicit relations with Guddi. Statement of this child witness inspires confidence.

The occurrence in this case took place on 23.10.1996 at 8 a.m., while the school of Harpinder Singh PW-5 as per the statement of DW-1 Sat Parkash, Principal of Amloh Public School opens at 9 a.m. The distance between the school and the house of Harpinder Singh PW-5 is only 6/7 kms which can be covered in a mini bus in 10-15 minutes. There is no heavy traffic on the roads in rural areas so that the bus could have got stuck in a traffic jam or would have gone slow.

Appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that deceased Kulwinder Kaur was suffering from depression and had taken some poisonous substance due to depression. This statement of the appellant is falsified by the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P3. The deceased died in the house of the appellant in broad day light. He was the best person to know as to how she had died and would have stated that she died because of poisonous substance, if it was actually true. In fact, it is Harpinder Singh PW-5 who brought out the truth that it is the appellant who put a handkerchief on the mouth of the deceased affecting her breathing which took her life.

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

Appeal is dismissed.

Criminal Revision No. 1987 of 2002 is also dismissed.