Harbans Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

The appellant was tried in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict him for the said offence and sentence him to under imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed a suit in appeal before this Court.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Gurmel Kaur was the wife of the appellant. They had two sons and three daughters. After marriage, there was bickering between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant used to beat her several times. Gurmel Kaur, deceased, came to her brother''s (Karam Singh) house at Bagha Purana and her brother used to advise her and send back.

About 5/6 years ago, the deceased and the appellant alongwith their children had come to Moga and started living there. The appellant started doing the job of a driver at Moga. At Moga too, the appellant continued beating Gurmel Kaur, deceased. Because of that, her brother Karam Singh complainant, had brought Gurmel Kaur to his house at Bagha Purana and had filed a suit for maintenance against the appellant. The suit remained pending for 11/2 to 2 years. Thereafter, Jagraon Panchayat and relatives came to the brother of the deceased at Bagha Purana and at their instance, the brother of the deceased had sent Gurmel Kaur (deceased) along with the appellant. The appellant along with his wife (deceased) and their children came to Jagraon and started living there. There again, the appellant started beating and harassing deceasedGurmel Kaur due to which the deceased started living with her brother (Karam Singh) at Bagha Purana, about 6/7 months before the incident. About 11/2 months before the incident, the appellant and one Gian Chand son of Madan Gopal went to the brother of the deceased at Bagha Purana and on their responsibility, the brother of the deceased sent Gurmel Kaur with them.

On 30.1.1991, at about 5.00 p.m., Karam Singh, brother of the deceased had come to see his sister (deceased) at Jagraon. After taking meals, he laid on a cot in the kitchen constructed in the courtyard and was sleeping on it. Gurmel Kaur deceased, the appellant, their sons, namely, Surinder Singh, Gurprit Singh and daughter Sushma Rani were sleeping inside the room. At night, at about 2/3 a.m., Karam Singh, on hearing the loud voice, woke up and on getting up, he saw that the door opening towards the courtyard was open and there was electric light inside the room. The appellant was holding a handle of the handpump in his hand and was standing on the right side of his sister (Gurmel Kaur). The sons and daughter of the deceased, having woken up, were sitting on the cot. The appellant was asking Gurmel Kaur to bring money from her parental house for the reason that he was passing through a hardship. At this, his sister replied that all of them had got families to support and as such, she could not make a demand for money. The appellant remarked that she did not obey him and within his (Karam Singh) sight, the appellant struck 213 blows of the handle of the handpump on the head of the deceased. Karam Singh stepped forward to separate them, whereupon the appellant wielded the handle at him. Out of fear, Karam Singh retraced his steps. Thereafter the appellant gave blows with the handle of the handpump to the deceased on her neck, legs and arms. The children of the deceased raised alarm whereupon the appellant ran towards outside together with the handle of the handpump. Gurmel Kaur succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Leaving her children there, Karam Singh proceeded to inform his family members at Bagha Purana at night. He was going to the Police Station to lodge a report, when SubInspector Ram Murti who was Incharge of Police Station, City Jagraon and who was on petrol duty, met him and Karam Singh lodged his complaint before Shri Ram Murti, Sub Inspector. The F.I.R. was got registered and thereafter, investigation started. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jagraon, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Ludhiana and relying upon the prosecution evidence, the above judgment was given by the learned Sessions Judge.

We have heard Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

The main evidence in this case consists of PW1Dr. Mukesh Gupta, who had performed the postmortem examination, PW2 Karam Singh, complainant and PW3 Surinder Pal Singh who is the son of the appellant and the deceased. PW1 Dr. Mukesh Gupta has mentioned the injuries, including the injuries on head, which he found on the dead body. According to the doctor, injuries No. 1 to 3 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and he has also deposed that the injuries could be caused by the handle Ex. P1.

PW2 is the complainantKaram Singh who has given his version. He has deposed regarding the illtreatment by the appellant to the deceased and he also stated that on the night of the incident he was there in the house of his sister (deceased) and also deposed regarding having witnessed the incident.

PW3 Surinder Pal Singh, son of the appellant, was examined by the prosecution and before administering oath to him, the learned Sessions Judge had asked some questions and after satisfying that the witness was mature enough to understand the sanctity of oath, the oath was administered to him. This witness has also stated regarding the quarrels between the appellant and the deceased and the beatings given by the appellant to the deceased. He has narrated the incident of the night of 30.1.1991. He has also stated that his maternal Uncle was, at that time, sleeping in the kitchen situated in the courtyard. This witness woke up on hearing the noise and found the appellant quarrelling with the deceased and was asking her to bring money from the house of her parents. He has further stated that the deceased expressed her inability to bring money because her brothers had their own families to support. At that time an iron lever of the handpump was in the hand of the appellant and he gave 2/3 blows with the same on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down on the spot and the appellant caused more injuries to the deceased with the said lever on her neck, arms and legs. He has also stated that his maternal uncle (Karam Singh) had also come out, on hearing alarm and witnessed the occurrence. The witness has further stated that the appellant assaulted Karam Singh with the iron lever when he tried to step ahead and Karam Singh had to retrace his steps and then the appellant ran away, along with the iron lever. He has also stated that his brother and sisters had also witnessed the occurrence and that an electric bulb was emanating light at the time of occurrence. He further stated that his mother died at the spot due to injuries.

It was argued by learned Advocate for the appellant that the evidence does not inspire confidence. He has relied upon the evidence of PW1Dr. Mukesh Gupta who has stated that semidigested food was found in the stomach and small intestines and has argued that the time and date is not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution. However, it can be seen that there is no crossexamination on the doctor on this point and it will be hazardous, therefore, to accept this argument. The learned Advocate for the appellant further argued that the evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy. However, it can be seen that both the eyewitnesses, (PW 2Karam Singh complainant and PW3Surinder Pal Singh), have been crossexamined at length and nothing has come up from their crossexamination to show that the statements which they made in the court in their deposition, cannot be accepted. The appellant has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is innocent and he left Jagraon on 28.1.1991 on truck No. PBU916 upon which he was working as a driver. He returned to his house in the evening of 31.1.1991 when he was arrested by the police. He has also stated that PW2 Surinder Pal Singh has made a tutored statement. This defence is that of an alibi and it is not supported by any evidence on record. Moreover, though PW3 Surinder Pal Singh has been treated as a child witness by the trial Judge by asking him some question before administering oath, it can be seen that his age was 15 years at the time of deposition. The appellant is the father of this witness, and there is no reason why this witness would go to make a false deposition against his father unless he has seen his father murdering his mother. Thus, from the deposition of this witness and from other evidence on record, nothing has been shown to us from which a doubt can be raised that this witness Surinder Pal Singh is a tutored witness. There is no reason for the complainant i.e. PW2Karam Singh also to give a false deposition against his own brotherinlaw. Another fact to be seen is that the death of the deceased has taken place in the house of the appellant and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was a homicidal death. Therefore, this circumstance adds to the evidence which comes up from the deposition of PW2 Karam Singh and PW3 Surinder Pal Singh.

Having carefully considered the evidence on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Judge who had found the appellant guilty of the offence. Hence, the conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Judge are affirmed.

As a result, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.