Krishna vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated 7th January, 1992 whereby the present appellant was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally committing the murder of her mother-in-law Suraj Kaur and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine she was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

In brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from the first information report recorded on the basis of the statement made by Pal Singh P. W. to AS1 Rup Singh are that Reshma daughter of Suraj Kaur deceased was married to Pal Singh complainant, who, is a resident of village Cheema, whereas, Krishna accused is the wife of Ram Kumar son of Suraj Kaur deceased, who belongs to village Hamirgarh. According to the prosecution case, three days prior to the present occurrence Suraj Kaur went to village Cheema to see her daughter Reshma. On 27-8-1990, at about 4 p.m. Krishna accused went to the house of Pal Singh complainant. Her arrival was not to the liking of Suraj Kaur as relations of the accused with her husband Ram Kumar were strained, and, he had deserted her. Krishana accused believed that because of Suraj Kaur her husband had deserted her. As such the accused nourished a grudge against her mother-in-law. After taking meals all the family members of Pal Singh as well as Suraj Kaur went to sleep in the court yard. Surjit Singh brother of Pal Singh complainant was sleeping in the common court yard of his house which is adjacent to the house of Pal Singh. At that time an electric light was on. At about 3 a.m. on the night intervening 27/28-8-1990 Krishana accused got up and went up to the cot where Suraj Kaur was sleeping. She gave a blow with a Chhuri on the head of Suraj Kaur who raised shrieks and alaram. Thereafter Pal Singh and his brother Surjit Singh got up. They saw Krishana accused giving blows to her mother-in-law. After causing injuries Krishana accused managed to escape. The complainant and his brother Surjit Singh and other members of the family took care of Suraj Kaur, who, breathed her last after a short time. Pal Singh then proceeded to the Police Post, Cheema. On the way he met ASI Rup Singh near the bus stand and made his statement on the basis of which formal first information report was subsequently registered at the Police Station. Accompanied by Pal Singh PW, ASI Rup Singh then went and inspected the spot, prepared inquest report, lifted blood stained earth from near the spot and took into possession blood stained cloth spread on the cot on which Suraj Kaur was sleeping. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused on 4-9-1990. After completion of the investigation, the present appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court, as stated earlier.

The appellant in her statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial Court pleaded false implication. She stated that her husband Ram Kumar had developed illicit relations with Shimlo sister of Pal Singh and Surjit Singh PWs. She used to prevent her husband from leading adulterous life with Shimlo. She had asked him not to spend any money on her or her relations. She denied that Ram Kumar had deserted her and pleaded that she had good relations with Suraj Kaur. According to the accused even Suraj Kaur used to tell Ram Kumar to mend his ways. Pal Singh and Surjit Singh were not happy with her or with Suraj Kaur and in connivance with Ram Kumar they got her falsely implicated in this case. She further stated that at the time of occurrence she was in advance stage of pregnancy and could not move about. She delivered a female child a few days thereafter. Sukhwinder Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala, was examined as DW 1. According to this witness Krishana accused delivered a female child in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 16-9-1990 while lodged in Central Jail, Patiala, and that she was admitted in the hospital on 8-9-1990.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be desirable to note the injuries on the body of Suraj Kaur deceased. Dr. B. S. Gill, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Suraj Kaur at 5 p.m. on 28-5- 1990 found three lacerated injuries on the dead body. The first injury 3.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. was on the left side of the scalp underneath which besides presence of big haemotoma, left temporal bone and parietal bone were found fractured in many pieces which were found lying in the brain tissue. Besides there was laceration of underlying meninges and brain tissues. There was collection of blood on the left middle cranial fossa. The second injury was also a lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. Brain deep on the left side of the scalp. Underlying occupital bone showed depressed fracture. On opening the skull the meninges were found lacerated and there was collection of blood in the posterior cranial fossa. The third injury too was a lacerated wound on the pinna in its upper part. Clotted blood was present and underlying cartilage was lacerated. Death in the opinion of the said doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 according to the said doctor were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries in the opinion of the said doctor were as a result of blunt weapon.

Since the occurrence took place in the early hours of the morning in the house of Pal Singh, his presence and that of his brother Surjit Singh who was sleeping in the common Court yard adjoining his house at the spot during the occurrence is quite natural probable and convincing. However, it is pertinent to note that the accused is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. According to the prosecution the relations between the accused and her husband Ram Kumar who is a police constable were strained. The accused was in advance stage of pregnancy and according to the defence evidence she delivered a child in jail after about three weeks of the present occurrence. Mere suspicion of the accused that her husband was carrying on liason with unmarried sister of Pal Singh PW in the circumstances of the present case can hardly be considered sufficient reason for the accused to go to the house of Pal Singh PW and to commit the murder of Suraj Kaur her mother-in-law. It is the case of the prosecution that both Pal Singh and his brother Surjit Singh had actually seen the accused causing injuries to the deceased. It is difficult to believe that in such a situation both Pal Singh and Surjit Singh PWs would not over- power Krishana accused and would allow her to escape.

Apart from the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case the ocular account given by both Pal Singh and Surjit Singh PWs is contradictory on material aspects of the prosecution story by the medical evidence on the record. During the trial both Pal Singh and Surjit Singh PWs deposed that Krishana accused was armed with a Sabbal like weapon with sharp edges on the front side and that they had seen her giving two or three Sabbal blows dangwise on the head of Suraj Kaur. In the earliest version given by Pal Singh PW both in the first information report as well as in his statement recorded in the inquest report he had specifically mentioned that the accused had given Chhuri blow on the head of the deceased. Pal Singh PW was duly confronted with his statement which constitutes the first information report as well as with his statement in the inquest proceedings on this point and has not been able to give any plausible explanation concerning his changed version during the trial. Surjit Singh PW in his statement before the police had not mentioned the kind of weapon with which the accused had inflicted injuries to the deceased at the time of the occurrence. As already mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment medical evidence reveals that all the three injuries on the head of the deceased were lacerated wounds and could be caused by a blunt weapon. It is thus quite patent that in order to reconcile their statement with the medical evidence both Pal Singh and Surjit Singh PWs have entirely changed their version by deposing for the first time during the trial that the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased with a Sabbal, which, according to them, was used dangwise. Both Pal Singh and Surjit Singh PWs are thus wholly unreliable witnesses and it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on their testimony which is amply contradicted by the medical evidence on the record.

It is also significant to note that even though the occurrence took place at about 3 a.m. the formal first information report on the basis of the statement of Pal Singh PW was recorded at the Police Station at 10.20 a.m. and the special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at Sangrur at 12.40 p,m. Taking into consideration the distance involved for lodging the first information report as well as in sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, in our view there is some un- explained delay in lodging the first information report. Thus there was ample time for the complainant party to make due deliberations and consultations and introduce a coloured version of its own choice.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Krishana appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against her is set aside and giving the benefit of doubt the appellant in hereby acquitted. This appeal is accordingly allowed.