Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab

A.L. Bahri, J.—Gurmit Singh aged about 19 years, resident of Village Pandher Kalan, District Amritsar, was convicted by Additional Sessions judge, Amritsar on February 20, 1987 under sections 302 and 449, Indian Penal Code. he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 449, Indian Penal Code. He has come up in appeal.

The first information report was lodged by Balwinder Kaur, widow of Rattan Singh deceased. She along with her husband Rattan Singh, her uncle, Rattan Singh son of Vir Singh, her husband''s brother Avtar Singh was present in the house in village Pandher Kalan. A sum of Rs. 8/ was due from her husband to Gurmit Singh accused. Gurmit Singh came there and demanded that amount. Her uncle Rattan Singh took out Rs. 10/ from his pocket to be handed over to Gurmit Singh which Rattan Singh husband of Balwinder Kaur, objected. He told Gurmit Singh accused that he would pay the amount in the morning. However, Gurmit Singh did not agree. He took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Rattan Singh hitting on the left side of his chest near the nipple. Gurmit Singh left the house followed by Rattan Singh injured. In the street, Rattan Singh fell down. He was being taken to hospital at Fategarh Churian that on the way he died and was brought back. Balwinder Kaur went towards the police station to report and on the way A.S.I. Mohan Singh met her on the canal bridge, Sangatpura to whom she made the report. On the basis of that statement, a case was registered at the police station. This occurrence took place on Jure 14, 1986 at about 9.10 P.M. in the house of Rattan Singh deceased. After arrest of Gurmit Singh, he got recovered a knife which was concealed in the fields. During investigation of the ease, the police also took into possession bloodstained earth from the street and bloodstained clothes of the deceased. Gurmit Singh was put up for trial.

P.W. 5 Balwinder Kaur narrated the prosecution story as briefly stated above. P.W. 6 Avtar Singh supported her on all the material facts. The medical evidence consists of the statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Rakesh Tiwari who conducted postmortem on, the dead body of Rattan Singh deceased and found the following injury :

An incised stab wound 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. vertically placed present on the left side of the chest at 8 O''clock position and 3 cm. from left nipple.

On dissection of injury No. 1, there was a cut 2 cm. x 1 cm. perilcordium and cut 1.75 cm. x. 75 cm. in the right ventricle on its anterior wall through and through. There was 100 c. c. of free fluid blood in left chest cavity.

Injury was antemortem and caused by sharpedge pointed weapon. Stomach contained semidigested food about 100 c. c.

According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the heart which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Exhibit P. A. is the copy of the postmortem report. P.W. 2 Constable Baldev Singh got the postmortem conducted on the dead body which was entrusted to him by the Investigating officer. P.W. 3 Rishi Ram, Draftsman, prepared the plan of the place where the dead body was lying which is Exhibit P.B. PW, 4 Hazara Singh attested the inquest report, Exhibit P.C. P.W. 8 Raghbir Singh ExSarpanch, produced the accused before the police on June 20. 1986. This disclosure statement, Exhibit P.L. was recorded that he had kept concealed the knife in the sarkandas near the railway line in the area of the village and in pursuance of the said statement the accused got recovered the knife which was stained with blood. Exhibit P.L.I is the recovery memo. Exhibit P.L./2 is the sketch of the knife. P.W. 9 S. 1. Som Nath deposed about the recovery of the knife in pursuance of the statement of accused. P.W. 10 A.S.I. Mohan Singh also investigated the case. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit P.J. was produced to show that the knife, bloodstained earth and the clothes of the deceased were stained with blood. Report of Serologist, Exhibit PK, showed that the clothes were stained with human blood. However, the origin of the blood on the earth and the knife could not be determined The aforesaid evidence was put to the accused and his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, was recorded He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. Although opportunity was afforded to him, he did not produce any evidence in defence. It is upon consideration of the evidence produced in the case that the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant.

The occurrence took place at about 9.30 P.M. on June 14, 1986. Statement of Balwinder Kaur was recorded at Canal Bridge. Sangatpura at 1.05 A.M. by S.I. Mohan Singh. The said statement was sent to the Police Station, Majitha where information report was recorded at 2.45.A.M. The first information report reached the hands of Acting Chief Judicial Magistrate (on duty) on June, 15, 1987 at 7.15 A.M. as per endorsement on the first information report, Exhibit PF/2. This would show that report to the police was made promptly without any loss of time. Prompt lodging of report to the police lends corroboration to the prosecution story. Keeping in view this fact, the evidence of the two eyewitnesses will be considered.

Since the occurrence took place in the house of the deceased, the presence of Balwinder Kaur, widow of the deceased, in her own house at the time of the occurrence would be natural. Merely on the ground that Balwinder Kaur is closely related to the deceased, her evidence cannot be discarded. Rather in the present case, her presence at the time of the occurrence being natural will further lend corroboration to the prosecution story that she did see the occurrence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in fact the occurrence took place outside the house and Balwinder Kaur while present in the house could not see the occurrence. It is afterwards that the scene of occurrence has been shifted to the house. I do not find any merit in this contention. If assumed for the sake of argument that the occurrence had taken place outside the house even then the presence of Balwinder Kaur would have been natural. No special benefit is taken by the prosecution to shift the place of occurrence from the street to the inside of the house.

Learned counsel for the appellant. while referring to the statement of Balwinder Kaur P.W. 5, has argued that in fact Kundan Singh and Hazara Singh were deputed to bring the police and they brought the police to spot in two hours'' time and the prosecution story as put in the first information report is the result of due deliberations. There is no force in this contention. No. doubt, Balwinder Kaur was crossexamined and she stated that those two persons were sent to the police station to bring the police She further stated that the police came to the spot in about two hours'' time. However, from that it cannot be doubted that after the occurrence when Rattan Singh was alive, no effort was made to take him to the hospital. It was natural course for Balwinder Kaur to adopt i.e. to arrange for the horsecart to remove her husband who was in an injured condition to the hospital. It was on the way that Rattan Singh died and his dead body was brought back and put in the street. It has thereafter that she proceeded in the company of the Sarpanch to report the matter to the police and on the way on the Canal Bridge, A.S.I. Mohan Singh met her that she made the statement. A S.I. Mohan Singh reached the spot and it may be that he alongwith other police officials reached the spot in about two hours'' time. Moreover, Kundan Singh and Hazara Singh were not the eyewitnesses. No question was put to A.S.I. Mohan on Singh that Kundan Singh and Hazara Singh had gone to the police station and had brought him to the spot. According to A.S.I. Mohan Singh, he with other police officials was picketing on the Canal Bridge when Balwinder Kaur met him and made the statement. There is no ground to discard the evidence of the prosecution witness on that score.

Avtar Singh P.W. 6 is another eyewitness who has supported the version of Balwinder Kaur. P.W. 5 Avtar Singh is the brother Of Rattan Singh deceased. His house is situated just oppisite to the house of the deceased. Since Rattan Singh son of Vir Singh had come to the house of the deceased, Avtar Singh also had come there. His presence, therefore, at the time of the occurrence in the house of Rattan Singh deceased is considered to be natural.

The ocular evidence of the two eyewitnesses referred to above further finds corroboration from the medical evidence which has already been noticed above. The injury caused to Rattan Singh deceased was the result of a knife blow and the death was on account of the said injury.

The recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused in pursual to his statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act further lends corroboration to the prosecution case that the knife was stained with blood as found by the Chemical Examiner in his report Exhibit PJ. No cogent reason has been shown to discard the recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused. The evidence of Raghbir Singh P.W. and S.I. Som Nath, P.W. is consistent and can safely be relied upon. From the consideration of the evidence as discussed above, Additional Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Gurmit Singh accused had there passed into the house of the deceased and caused injury in the Test of the deceased with knife.

Further question for consideration is as to what offence the appellant has committed by inflicting a knife blow in the chest of the deceased which ultimately proved to be fatal. The appellant went to the house of the deceased only to demand Rs. 8/ which were due to him. Balwinder Kaur P.W. admitted that they had been making purchases from the shop of the appellant off and on and the appellant had earlier also been visiting their house. Thus, on the day of the occurrence when the appellant visited the house of the deceased, his only aim was to get the money which was due to him. He had no intention to kill Rattan Singh deceased. Since the amount was not paid to the appellant, suddenly he got enraged and took out of a small knife from his pocket and hurled the blow which landed in the chest of deceased. No further blow with the knife was given by the appellant. From the facts as stated above, it is certain that the appellant never intended to kill Rattan Singh deceased. He also never intended to cause such bodily injury which would have proved fatal. It is per chance that the injury landed on the chest. That being the position, the case would fall under section 304 PartII of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein the offence committed was held to be tinder section 304 PartII and not under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Original) 459, was a case where single knife blow inflicted landed on the chest which injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury was caused on the spur of the moment in a sudden and chance quarrel on a trivial issue. There was no premeditation or malice on the part of the accused. On such facts, it was held that the offence committed was under section 304 PartII Indian Penal Code, and not under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The, other case is Jawahar Lal and another v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 83 : 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 803 . That was also a case where single knife blow was inflicted which landed on the chest causing the death. The occurrence had taken place on a trival/dispute with the deceased''s friend. There was no previous enmity with the deceased. The offence committed was held to be under section 304 PartII Indian Penal Code. In para 15 of the judgment it was observed as under :

"Merely because the blow landed on a particular spot on the body, divorced from circumstances in which the blow was given, it would be hazardous to say that the first appellant intended to cause that particular injury. The weapon used was the usual handy weapon, a Punjabi generally carries a knife. The first appellant was near his shop. He did not attempt to inflict any more harm. In the available dim light, the blow landed on the chest. In our opinion, in these circumstances. it would be difficult to say that the first appellant intended to cause that particular injury. Even if the injury inflicted proved to be fatal, the case would not be covered by para 3 of Section 300."

Taking into consideration the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above and the facts and circumstances of the present case as already discussed above, it is held that offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code, is not made out and the offence committed is under section 304 PartII Indian Penal Code.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly accepted. The conviction of the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code, is set aside. He is convicted under section 304 PartII, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. His conviction under section 449, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months are maintained. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.