Krishan Ram vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, dated 23rd of July, 1993, whereby, Krishan Ram appellant was convicved u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Madan Ram appellant was convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine each of them was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Their father and co-accused Sarup Ram was, however, acquitted.

In brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from the first information report lodged by Gurdev Singh real brother of Surjit Singh deceased, and, an eye-witness in this case, are, that on 27-8-1992 at about 7. a.m., he had just come out of the village Gurdwara along with Joginder Singh and Jagjit Singh. When all of them came out side the gate of Gurdwara, they saw Surjit Singh deceased brother of Gurdev Singh PW coming from the side of the village pond with his buffaloes. At that time Krishan Ram armed with a Kassia, his brother Madan Ram armed with Gandasa and their father Sarup Ram armed with a Soti came there. Sarup Ram accused raised a lalkara exhorting his other co-accused not to allow Surjit Singh to escape. Immediately thereafter Madan Ram accused caught hold of Surjit Singh in his grip, where as, Krishan Ram accused gave a blow with a Kassia on the head of Surjit Singh, who fell down on the ground. Gurdev Singh, Joginder Singh PWs and Jagjit Singh raised alarm hearing which all the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Surjit Singh, died at the spot on account of the injuries received by him. Motive for the crime, according to the prosecution is that about 4/5 days prior to the present occurrence Sarup Ram accused whose land adjoins the land of Surjit Singh deceased had thrown weeds from his cotton fields towards the field of Surjit Singh deceased who protested against the action of the accused. Both of them quarrelled with each other on that account.

Leaving Joginder Singh PW and Jagjit Singh to guard the dead body of Surjit Singh, Gurdev Singh PW left for the police station to lodge the report. On the way near the canal bridge in the area of village Daraka Patti, Gurdev Singh PW met ASI Sardara Singh and made his statement Ex. PF at 9.30 a.m. and, on its basis formal first information report was subsequently registered at the police station at 10.05 a.m. on the same day. ASI Sardara Singh then went to the spot, prepared inquest report, and, sent their dead body for post-mortem examination. He then lifted blood stained earth from near the spot which was duly sealed in a parcel and taken possession through seizure memo. He recorded the statements of the PWs. Inspector Bharpur Singh subsequently reached the spot and took over the investigation. He verified the investigation already carried out by ASI Sardara Singh and searched for the accused. After arrest of the accused and completion of the investigation, all the three accused including the present appellants were challaned, committed, tried and the two appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated earlien and Sarup Singh accused was acquitted, by the trial Court.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

Dr. Shamsher Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surjit Singh on the evening of the occurrence at 2.40 p.m. and found the following injuries:-

Incised wound 8.5 cm x 0.75 cm x bone deep on the right side of head, lcm from midline placed on teroposterially, 13 cm from right ear pinna and 16 cm from right eye-brow. The underlying bone was cut through and through in the line of direction of the wound.

Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of the head on the back 1.5 cm from midline 7 cm from right ear pinna and 10.5 cm above the base of neck on the back. The underlying bone was fractured.

Abrasion 6 cm x 1 cm on left side of forehead 2 cm from left eye-brow and 1.5 cm from midline.

Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on front and left side of bridge of nose, 2 cm below mid-eye brow point.

On dissection of injury No. 1 there was present haemotomainto various layers of scalp in and around the seat of injury. The underlying bone was cut in its whole breadth in a line of the direction of the wound. The various layers of meninges were cut in the line of direction of the wound and there was haemotoma in and around the seat of injury into various layers of meninges. The brain matter was lacerated. There was blood into cranial cavity. On dissection of injury No. 2 there was present haemotoma into various layers of scalp in and around the seat of the injury. The underlying bone was depressed and fractured at 2 places. There was present haemotoma into various layers of meninges. The brain matter was depressed at the seat of injury. There was present sub-dural haemotoma in and around the seat of injury. The cranial cavity was full of blood and blood clots.

On behalf of the appellants, it was mainly submitted that the first information report in the instant case was prepared by ASI Sardara Singh after spot inspection; that the occurrence took place on the preceding night at about 11 p.m.; that none of the two eye-witnesses namely Gurdev Singh and Joginder Singh were present at the spot at the time of the occurrence and that the present appellants have been roped in because of previous enmity.

So far as the first contention with regard to recording of the first information report at the spot, after examining all the injuries of the deceased is concerned, it is quite apparent that in case the plea taken up on behalf of the appellants had been correct and the investigating officer had taken due care in examining the injuries of the deceased, then normally it was not expected from an experienced police officer like ASI Sardara Singh not to notice the lacerated wound on the back of the head of the deceased. It is equally improbable that in that eventuality ASI Sardar Singh would not question either from Gurdev Singh first informant or from Joginder Singh PW and Jagjit Singh as to how the other three injuries on the dead body of the deceased had been caused. It is true that after the occurrence Gurdev Singh PW did not go to the house of the deceased to inform his wife and children about the commission of the murder of Surjit Singh. On the other hand Gurdev Singh immediately left to lodge the report with the police. In view of the fact that apart from Gurdev Singh PW, Joginder Singh PW and Jagjit Singh were present at the spot, mere omission on the part of Gurdev Singh PW not to go to the house of the deceased to inform his wife and children about the occurrence would not be sufficient to hold that his conduct was inconsistent with natural human conduct or that he is a wholly unreliable witness particularly when Joginder Singh or Jagjit Singh could go to inform the wife and children and other nearer relations of the deceased, about this occurrence.

On the way to the police station, Gurdev Singh PW met ASI Sardara Singh near the canal bridge and made a statement Ex. PF which was completed at 9.30 A.M. and on its basis formal information report was subsequently registered at the Police Station, at 10.05 A.M. and special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, at Barnala, at 12.30 P.M. on the same day. The first information report has thus been lodged with all promptitude. Mere fact that the first informant Gurdev Singh took a little longer route for going to the Police Station for the sake of his own safety or, that he did not use any convenyance while proceeding to the Police Satation would hardly be sufficient to disbeilive his testimony on this point. However, it would be prudent that the ocular account given by the two eye-witnesses in this case is thoroughly be scrutinized on material aspect of the prosecution story.

The ocular account in the instant case rests on the testimony of two eye-witnesses Gurdev Singh PW.3 real brother of the deceased and Joginder Singh PW.4 their cousin. The first and the fore-most question which arises for consideration is as to whether presence of these two eye-witnesses at the sopt at the time of the occurrence is natural, probable and convincing. Both these witnesses have given cogent reason for their presence at the spot at the time of the occurrence. Both these witnesses had gone to the village Gurdwara for paying obeissance and after paying obeissance they had just come out of the village Gurdwara and shortly thereafter the main occurrence took place, when the accused party duly armed way laid Surjit Singh, who was returning from side of village pond with his buffaloes. ASI Sardara Singh had observed the dead body of Surjit Singh lying in the just near the outer wall of the village Gurdwara, and had also lifted blood stained earth from near the spot, which as per report of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist was found to be stained with human blood and is helpful in fixing the place occurrence which has not been seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is true the Investigating Officer did not interrogate Granthi of the village Gurdwara during the investigation. Nor any other person from the locality has been produced by the prosecution. This lapse on the part of the Investigating agency in our view would not be sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of the two close relations of the deceased whose presence at the spot at the time of the occurrence is quite natural, probable and convincing.

The next question which further arises for determination is as to whether the testimony of Gurdev Singh and Jogindar Singh PWs is credible and trust-worthy of material aspects of the prosecution story. Both these witnesses have consistently deposed that after Sarup Ram accused (since acquitted) had raised a lalkara Madan Ram appellant took Surjit Singh into his fold and thereafter Krishan Ram appellant gave a kassia below on the head of Surjit Singh, who, fell down and died at the spot. The medical evidence, however, reveals another lacerated wound on the back of the head of the deceased. Besides there are two abrasions one on the left side of the fore-head and the other on the left side of the bridge of the nose. None of the lathal injuries are specifically attributted to any individual. Injury Nos.3 and 4. being abrasions could be the result of a fall, whereas, injury No. 2 on the back of the head of the deceased normally cannot be caused by a fall. This aspect would not be sufficient to discard ocular account altogether. No other material contradiction or infirmity worth the name has been pointed out in the testimony of the two eye-witnesses. Apart from the above infirmity in the ocular account, it is difficult to believe the testimony of the two eyewitnesses concerning the role, attributted to Madan Ram appellant during the occurrence. It is difficult to believe that while Madan Ram was holding Surjit Singh deceased in his fold, Krishan Ram his coappellant would give a blow with a kassia, a sharp edged weapon, on the head of the deceased. The material circumtances referred to above cast grave doubt about the presence and participation of Madan Ram appellant during the occurrence, as deposed to by Gurdev Singh and Jogindar Singh PWs during the trial. In this part of the country there is an unfortunate tendency to rope in innocent with guilty. Thus as an abundant caution giving the benefit of doubt, we set aside the order conviction and sentence passed against Madam Ram appellant by the trial Court and hereby acquit him.

The ocular account given by Gurdev Singh and Jogindar Singh PWs so far presence and participation of Krishan Ram appellant is concerned is credit worthy and finds independent corroboration from the medical evidence on the record which shows that injury near" the top of the head of the deceased was an incised wound and underlying bone and brain matter were cut. This injury according to the opinion of Dr. Shamsher Singh PW.l could be caused by a kassia, and was sufficient to cause death of Surjit Singh deceased, in the ordinary course of nature.

The prosecution, in the instant case, has alleged a definite motive. Land of the deceased and that of the accused party adjoin each other. 3/4 days prior to the present occurrence Sarup Ram while taking out weeds from his cotton field had thrown the same in the field of Surjit Singh who was hoeing this crop. Surjit Singh protested and there was an altercation between Sarup Ram and Surjit Singh. The motive attributed to the accused party is quite insignificant. At any rate, it cannot be said that the motive would be entirely on the side of the accused to wreak vengeance on Surjit Singh deceased.

Krishan Ram appellant was arrested on 3-9-1992 on 5-9-1992 on interrogation by Inspector Bharpur Singh he made a disclosure statement in pursuance of which he got recovered kassia lying concealed under heap of cow-dung cakes in the Parchhati of his house. Taking into consideration the fact that Krishan Ram appellant had ample time at his disposal to dispose of the weapon of offence, it is difficult to believe that he would still keep the same concealed in his own house. We are thus not placing any i.e. reliance on the recovery of kassia in this case.

The defence plea taken on behalf of the appellant that the occurrence took place on the night preceding the occurrence at about 11 P.M. or that Gurdev Singh and Jogindar Singh PWs were not present at the time of the occurrence has not been substantiated on the record. It is difficult to belive that in case the occurrence had taken place on the night preceding the occurrence as pleaded by the defence, the presence of dead body near the village Gurdwara would go unnoticed by the villagers most of whom go to the Gurdwara in the early hours of the morning to pay their obeissance. In such an eventuality there would be commotion in the village about the presence of the dead body near the place of worship. In the absence of any material evidence on the record, it is difficult to belive that the occurrence took place during the night preceding the occurrence as pleaded by the defence.

The learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the presence of semi digested food/material in the stomach of the deceased coupled with the fact that rigormortis was present in all the four limbs support, the defence plea that the occurrence took place on the preceding night, and not on the morning of 27-8-1992. According to Dr. Shamsher Singh PW. 1, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surjit Singh it was a body of well built young man. Taking into consideration the fact that degestion process continues in case of young people even after the death and in the absence of any reliable evidence about the type of food exact time when the deceased took his last meals, is taken as his last meals, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the occurrence took place on the night preceding 27-8-1992. Mere presence of rigor mortis in the four limbs also would not be sufficient to raise any such inference, in view of the fact that the dead body was lying in the open in hot wheather before arrival of the police in the village on 27-8-1992. The medical evidence referred to above is certainly not of that conclusive nature which can be preferred to the ocular account given by the two close relation of the deceased, who, normally, would not exculpate the real culprits or instead would inculpate Krishan Ram appellant. We have thus not the least hesitation in rejecting the defence plea set up on behalf of Krishan Ram appellant.

For the forgoing reasons, the order of conviction and senctence passed by the learned trial Court against Madan Ram appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him, whereas, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against Krishan Ram . appellant is up-held. This appeal partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The fine, if realised, from Krishan Ram appellant shall be paid as compensation to the nearest heirs of Surjit Singh deceased as contemplated u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.