Kulwant Singh vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This appeal is against order of conviction and sentence dated 04.02.2009 convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further RI for a period of three months. However, the period of detention during investigation and trial of the case was ordered to be set off while calculating the total period of sentence. Deceased Jagjit Kaur @ Najo wife of Gurdev Singh registered the FIR (Ex. PM/2) in which she alleged that she is a housewife having daughter Manjit Kaur and son Gurjit Singh, who are both married and living separately. She developed illicit relations with Kulwant Singh son of Hakam Singh (appellant) and started living with him, but on persuasion of her husband, relatives and Panchayat, came back to village Ghamnewal in the month of June, 2006 and started living with her family, but the appellant used to visit her off and on despite her objection. On 02.11.2006, at about 12.45 p.m., the appellant came on scooter and asked her to join him. On her refusal, he asked for returning the money and gold ear rings which were given by him to the deceased. The deceased refused to accompany him, on which he started extending threats of killing her and brought a big plastic bottle from his scooter and poured Acid on her at once, causing burns to her eyes, body and clothes. On raising hue and cry, her neighbour Mohinder Kaur W/o Resham Singh and Gurdev Kaur W/o Balwant Singh reached at the spot and sent a message to her husband who arranged a vehicle and took her to Pahwa Hospital, Hambran where she was given first aid. The reason behind this occurrence was that Kulwant Singh wanted to carry the deceased forcibly but she had refused. It is also alleged that at the time of occurrence, her daughter-in-law Charanjit Kaur W/o Gurjit Singh looked after her.

The prosecution examined Dr. B.S. Bhogal (PW1), Dr. Geeta (PW2), Charanjit Kaur (PW3), Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma, Draftsman (PW4), HC Harmesh Kumar (PW5) who tendered his affidavit (Ex.PH), Constable Ravi Kumar (PW6) who tendered his affidavit (Ex.PJ), Gurdev Singh (PW7), ASI Jagmohan (PW8), Dr. T.S.Julka (PW9), Dr. R.S.Cheema (PW10) and the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory were tendered as (Ex.PV) and (Ex.PX).

In the statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant pleaded his innocence. He also examined Hardev Kaur (DW1) in his defence.

The deceased was initially medico-legally examined by Dr. T.S.Julka (PW9), who stated that the deceased was brought to his hospital with acid burn injuries on 02.11.2006 at 1.35 p.m. She had suffered 80% burns and was referred to Civil Hospital, Jagraon vide (Ex.PU). Thereafter, she was medico-legally examined by Dr. B.S. Bhogal (PW1) at Civil Hospital, Moga on the same day. PW1 stated that the deceased was brought by Jagir Singh, Gurdev Singh and the village Sarpanch and on her examination, found the following injuries:

Acid burn injuries over the whole of left side face, and both the upper and lower lips.

Left side of neck on the back and anteriorly is also having acid burns.

The left shoulder and brachium (upper arm) was also having acid burn injuries with scattered area of normal skin.

The whole of the back of the chest back of abdomen was also having acid injuries.

Both the buttocks and peri-anal region was also having acid burn injuries.

The left breast and left side of the abdomen was also having acid burn injuries at places.

Right forearm was also having acid burns injuries at places.

Both the thighs were also having scattered areas of the acid injuries.

Both the legs were also having acid burns injuries on scattered area.

The patient was unable to open her left eye completely due to burn injuries. I advised for eye specialist opinion and management if required.

The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Geeta (PW2) on 27.12.2006 at 2.15 p.m. alongwith Dr. Ashwani and opined that cause of death was septicemia shock as a result of multiple burns on the body, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the burns were ante-mortem in nature. As per Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.PX), Sulphuric Acid was detected on the clothes (Salwar and Kameez) and the pair of chappals belonging to the deceased.

ASI Jagmohan (PW8) had submitted that on 02.11.2006, he received a Ruqa (Ex. PK) from Pahwa Charitable Hospital, Hambran, where he moved an application (Ex.PL) for seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Dr. Rachhpal Singh Cheema, vide his endorsement (Ex.PL/1), declared the injured to be fit to make the statement which was recorded as (Ex. PM), read over to the deceased, who thumb marked it in token of its correctness. The statement was also thumb marked by her husband Gurdev Singh at Rs. Mark B'' and signed by Dr. Rachhpal Singh Cheema at Rs. Mark C''. He sent the endorsement (Ex. PM/1) to the Police Station, Hambran through Const. Harvinder Singh for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PM/2) was recorded.

Although the two other persons, namely, Gurdev Kaur wife of Balwant Singh and Mohinder Kaur wife of Resham Singh were not examined having been won over by the accused, but the prosecution case has been supported by Charanjit Kaur (PW3) who had given the same account of the occurrence as given by the complainant/deceased.

Faced with these circumstances, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case may be considered u/s 304 PartII IPC and life sentence may be reduced to the period of 10 years.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that it is a ghastly act on the part of the appellant who had come prepared for the commission of crime as he was carrying the bottle of acid in the dicky of his scooter which he used immediately on refusal of the deceased in accompanying him or on refusing to return his money and gold ear rings.

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the record and are of the considered view that the offence u/s 302 IPC is apparently made out against the appellant and he cannot take advantage of the number of days spent by the deceased to succumb to her injuries, as according to him the occurrence took place on 02.11.2006, whereas the ultimate end of the deceased came on 27.12.2006 because of septicemia. Even if the deceased expired after about 55 days of the alleged occurrence, the offence does not fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC as it is not a case of culpable homicide but it is a case of murder as the appellant had come prepared to commit the alleged crime, otherwise no prudent person would carry a full bottle of acid in the dicky of his scooter. The appellant had used the acid immediately on refusal by the deceased either in joining him or to part with alleged money and gold ear rings which were given by the appellant to her. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.