Manohar Singh vs State

V.K. Bali, J.

On small and perhaps wholly unjustified cause, appellant Manohar Singh is stated to have killed his wife Dalbir Kaur on 14th of May, 1987 on 8.30 a.m. The F.I.R. with regard to the incident was recorded on 15th of May 1987 at 7.15 p.m. It was recorded by ASI Sham Singh on the statement made by father of the deceased Nazir Singh at S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar. The statement as such was recorded at 6.00 p.m., formal F.I.R. whereof came into being at 7.15 p.m. The Special report with regard to the incident reached the Magistrate concerned at 11 a.m. On 16th of May, 1987 Nazir Singh stated that ten years ago he had married his daughter Dalbir Kaur to appellant Manohar Singh. Couple was blessed with three children. Her elder son was 9 years of age whereas younger to him was aged about 3 years. The appellant and his daughter along with their children were residing in the Haveli of Guljar Singh in village Khiala for the last one month. They were working as brick maker at the brickkiln. His nephew was also residing in the same Haveli of Guljar Singh and was working as a brickmaker in the brickkiln. A few days ago, his daughter Dalbir Kaur had sent a message to him that the appellant was demanding a sum of Rs. 2,000/ from her through her parents and he needed this amount urgently. He was also beating and maltreating her. On 13th of May, 1987, he went to see his daughter. On 14th of May, 1987 at about 8.30 a.m. appellant and his daughter Dalbir Kaur quarrelled over the demand of Rs. 2,000/ while sitting in the kitchen. Appellant became enraged and picked up a Datar (weapon for cutting) lying nearby and gave two Datar blows continuously hitting on the middle of the head of Dalbir Kaur. He and Dalbir Kaur raised an alarm and Joginder Singh who was residing nearby came to the spot. While he and Joginder Singh were trying to rescue Dalbir Kaur, appellant gave two more Datar blows to Dalbir Kaur on her head, but Dalbir Kaur raised both of her arms to ward off the attack; consequently the blows hit her on right and left arms. When they tried to intervene, the appellant ran away from the spot with his weapon. He and Joginder Singh arranged a car and brought Dalbir Kaur in an injured condition to S.G.T.B. Hospital and got her admitted there. Doctor gave treatment to Dalbir Kaur but in the morning of intervening night of 14th/15th of May, 1987, Dalbir Kaur succumbed to her injuries. The appellant inflicted injuries to his daughter Dalbir Kaur on account of demand of Rs. 2,000/ which resulted into her death. He further stated that he along with Joginder Singh had witnessed the occurrence.

The appellant was charged for intentionally causing death of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after resultant trial, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 16th of December, 1994 held guilty and consequently sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

The prosecution with a view to bring home the offence against the appellant examined PW1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta from the S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar. He only proved the bed head ticket regarding Dalbir Kaur. Dr. S.P. Singh Sohal who appeared as PW7 stated that on 16th of May, 1987 he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Dalbir Kaur. The dead body was brought on 15th of May, 1987 at 9.30 p.m. by Constable Kanwaljit Singh and was identified by Nazir Singh and Joginder Singh. The dead body was brought from S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar where she was admitted on 14th of May, 1987 at 9.05 a.m. and expired at 10.15 p.m. on the same day. According to police information, she is alleged to have died due to injuries with sharpedged weapon. The doctor found the following injuries on the dead body of Dalbir Kaur :

A stitched wound with 7 stitches which is obliquely placed on the head starting from 10 cm above the middle of the right eyebrow, going backward and towards left. The bone underneath was partially cut.

A stitched wound 12 cm with nine stitches three cm towards right and parallel to injury no. 1.

On dissection the bone underneath was cut. On further dissection the brain membrane and brain matter were cut. Blood and blood clots were present in the cranial cavity.

A stitched wound 3 cm with three stitches on the left parietal region 12 cm above the left ear obliquely placed. The bone underneath was partially cut.

A stitched wound 4 cm with three stitches on the forehead obliquely placed 5 cm vertically above the inner end of the right eyebrow. It was muscle deep.

A stitched wound 5 cm with three stitches on the back and medial side of the right forearm transversely placed, 6 cm below the elbow joint. The bones underneath were cut.

A stitched wound 6 cm with 6 stitches on the back and side of the left forearm in its lower third. It was muscle deep.

A stitched wound 7 cm with 6 stitches on the front and sides of the left forearm three cm above wrist joint. Bones underneath were cut.

A stitched wound 5 cm with 5 stitches on the base of the left index finger which was missing.

A stitched wound 7 cm with 7 stitches obliquely placed on the middle of the left thumb. The bone underneath was cut.

Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to head accompanied with multiple fractures which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between injuries and death was about 14 hours and between death and postmortem about 42 hours. In his crossexamination he stated that deadbody was brought on 15th of May, 1987 at 9.30 p.m. along with the police papers. Bed head ticket of Dalbir Kaur is on the judicial file. Rishi Ram Draftsman PW2 who had prepared the scaled site plan EX.PB proved the same. Nazir Singh father of the victim and Joginder Singh nephew who were examined as PW3 and PW4 respectively supported the prosecution version. Affidavits of Dalbir Singh ASI and Paramjit Singh MHC were tendered in evidence as PW5 and PW6. Kanwaljit Singh Constable who was examined as PW8 stated that in his presence ASI Sham Singh interrogated the appellant while he was in police custody. The appellant led the police party which was headed by ASI Sham Singh to the place where elephant grass was standing on the bank of pond in the area of village Khiala and the appellant produced a bloodstained Datar which was taken into possession. Its sketch was also made. Sub Inspector Sham Singh who was examined as PW9 detailed the steps he had taken while investigating the case. The Public Prosecutor tendered into evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist Ex. PQ and Ex.PR respectively in evidence.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he was innocent and has been falsely involved by arresting him from his house. He, however, led evidence in defence by examining Darshan Singh Librarian, SGTB Hospital, Amritsar as DW1. He stated that he had brought the bed head ticket of Dalbiro. She was admitted in the hospital on 14th May, 1987 at 9.05 a.m. and expired on the same day at 10.15 p.m. He also stated that it was not clear from the bed head ticket as to who brought the patient in the hospital. In his crossexamination he admitted that there is mention in the bed head ticket that the patient was beaten by her husband.

We have heard Mr. Gurdev Singh, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. Mr. Gurdev Singh vehemently contends that not only there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. but there is delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate concerned as well and that alone is sufficient to return a finding that Dalbir Kaur was done to death later in point of time than alleged by the prosecution and that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Even though we agree with the learned Counsel representing the appellant that there is certainly some delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in sending the special report to the Magistrate concerned but in the facts and circumstances of this case, it shall not make any difference. It is true that delay in lodging the F.I.R. and sending the special report to concerned Magistrate is viewed seriously but that alone is not fatal to the prosecution in every case. Further, as is made out from the evidence led in this case, the father of the victim and his nephew were perhaps making every effort so that Dalbir Kaur may get timely medical aid and might as well survive. They had taken her to the hospital by arranging a car and it was in the hospital when on information received, the police reached there and the statement of father of Dalbir Kaur was recorded. There may, therefore, be some explanation in lodging the F.I.R. at 6.00 p.m. on 14th of May, 1987 but certainly there is no explanation for delay in sending the special report. However, as mentioned above, that alone in our view would not be enough to reject the prosecution version. If presence of both the eyewitnesses or even for that matter PW4 Joginder Singh is established at the scene of occurrence, the delay in sending the report would lose all its significance. While dealing with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel with regard to presence of these two witnesses i.e. PW3 and PW4, in the discussion to follow we are going to hold that both of them or, in any case, Joginder Singh was certainly present at the scene of occurrence and these two witnesses had no motive whatsoever to involve the appellant in a false case.

The learned Counsel then contends that in Ex. PF Inquest Report there is no mention of the weapon used by the appellant while causing injuries to Dalbir Kaur. The Inquest Report was prepared in the presence of the two eye witnesses and the very fact that there is no mention of weapon in the Inquest Report in the relevant column is suggestive of the fact that these two witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence. We, however, find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel. In Ex.PF Inquest Report in Column No. 12, it is clearly mentioned that according to statement injuries were caused with sharpedged weapon. We have seen the sketch of weapon of offence and the same is certainly the sharpedged weapon. Once again in column No. 20 of the Inquest Report while dealing with the column, "Apparent cause of death", it has been clearly mentioned "on receipt of injuries caused with sharpedged weapon." It is, thus, not a case where nothing at all with regard to weapon of offence has been mentioned. The fact that Datar as such has not been mentioned even though the same is admittedly a sharpedged weapon, in our view, would not make any difference. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that the Datar as such was not produced in the Court itself. It is true that Datar as such has not been produced but that, however, in our view, is not enough to reject the prosecution case. It may be mentioned that Datar was recovered from the appellant and was sent to Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PQ shows that a packet containing earth, Datar, salwar, shirt and brassier was received by the Chemical Examiner and was delivered by Head Constable Surinder Kumar were tested and blood was found on them and scrapings and pieces therefrom were sent to the Serologist, Government of India. The report of the Serologist is also available on the record and the same is Ex.PR. A sealed packet was received by Serologist containing earth, datar, salwar, shirt and brassier. All these items were opined to be stained with human blood. It is, thus, proved that Datar was, in fact, taken into possession and along with other things was sent for chemical examination. It is true that Datar has still not been produced in Court but nonproduction thereof in our view has not prejudiced the case of prosecution. This contention of the learned Counsel is, thus, repelled. The learned Counsel then contends that even though the street leading to Haveli in which the appellant and his wife was residing was a thickly populated street, yet none other than persons related to the deceased were attracted. The learned Counsel further contends that as a matter of fact many persons must have been attracted at the scene of occurrence and yet the police deliberately cited only interested witnesses with a view to prop up the prosecution version. We find no merit in this contention of the learned Counsel as well. Insofar as Joginder Singh is concerned, it shall not be disputed that he was residing in the same very Haveli where the appellant and his family was residing. The father of deceased had come there a day prior to the date of occurrence and was either residing with his daughter or nephew. They ought to have, thus, been attracted and thus, witnessed the occurrence before someone else might have been able to reach there. Assuming that some people were attracted and actually came at the scene of occurrence and yet not seen the appellant causing injuries to his wife, they would not have been able to depose with regard to the actual occurrence. Their evidence should have been hearsay in nature as they could have only learnt from PW3 and PW4 the way and manner in which Dalbir Kaur was attacked by the appellant. Further it is not necessary that persons who might have been attracted to the scene of occurrence might have been willing to depose against the appellant. As is usually seen, no one in these days likes to be cited as witness for fear of creating an enemy and also of visiting Courts number of times. The learned defence Counsel then contends that PW3 and PW4 who were closely related to the victim did not make any effort to save Dalbir Kaur and that conduct of theirs is absolutely unnatural. He further contends that in case they were present, they ought to have made all out effort to save Dalbir Kaur. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this contention of the learned Counsel but find no merit in the same. The appellant was giving Datar blows one after the other to his wife on vital parts. It may be mentioned that all blows were aimed at her head. Selfpreservation might have compelled these two witnesses not to go near the appellant who in the rage of anger, that he in all probability, would have attacked them as well. Further, it all depends upon the nature of a particular person whether to intervene or not. Cases are not lacking where even the strangers have interfered to rescue a victim of attack whereas close relations have shirked in going to the place of occurrence, even though their close relations are in peril. Learned Counsel further contends that by the time ASI made an application requesting the doctors to conduct postmortem on the dead body of Dalbir Kaur, no version was available before it as alongwith the application, police papers or the F.I.R. was not attached. This argument of the learned Counsel needs to be summarily rejected as PW7 clearly stated that alongwith dead body he had also received Inquest Report Ex.PF, application for postmortem examination Ex.PG, copy of F.I.R. Ex.PH and statement of Nazir Singh Ex.PC and he initialled all the documents. Learned defence Counsel in his endeavour to show that PW3 and PW4 were not present at the scene of occurrence, further contends that they were nowhere near the patient till such time the statement of Nazir Singh was recorded in the evening at 6.00 p.m. and if they had actually witnessed the occurrence and had gone with the patient to the hospital, their presence must have been recorded somewhere. The learned Counsel makes a pertinent mention of the bed head ticket of the patient from which it is not clear as to who had admitted Dalbir Kaur in the hospital. We find no merit in this contention of the learned Counsel as well. Statement of the father of the victim was recorded at 6.00 p.m. on 15th of May, 1987 when ASI Sham Singh reached there on the information received by him with regard to admission of Dalbir Kaur in the hospital. Both the witnesses had stated that they arranged a car and took her to the hospital and got her admitted there. The dead body of Dalbir Kaur was taken for post mortem examination at 9.30 p.m. on 15th of May, 1987 as per version of PW7. It was brought by Constables Kanwaljit Singh and Dalbir Singh and was identified by Nazir Singh and Joginder Singh. True, in the bed head ticket it is not clear as to who got admitted Dalbir Kaur in the hospital but that fact goes in favour of the appellant. If it might have been recorded in the bed head ticket that PW3 and PW4 had not admitted her in the hospital and some body else had taken her to the hospital, he would have some argument to raise. However, as mentioned above from the bed head ticket it is not clear as to who admitted Dalbir Kaur in the hospital but in view of this, we cannot doubt and therefore reject the statements of PW3 and PW4 that they admitted or in any case one of them had taken Dalbir Kaur to the hospital for treatment.

The last contention of the learned Counsel which alone has some thrust but when examined in details that too is not enough to throw the prosecution version is that even though eyewitnesses stated that Dalbir Kaur was given four injuries, as a matter of fact nine injuries are found on her dead body and there being direct conflict between the ocular version and the medical evidence, the entire prosecution case deserves to be thrown out. It is true that while giving the details of occurrence, PW3 and PW4 have stated that the appellant caused two injuries on the head of Dalbir Kaur and he aimed two other blows on head as well but Dalbir Kaur warded off those blows resulting in injuries on his arms and hands. It is also true that on the dead body of Dalbir Kaur nine injuries were found by the doctor. A close look at injuries No. 8 and 9 would, however, make it clear that the same could be of one blow. Still there are eight injuries whereas the eyewitnesses stated that only four injuries were caused to her. Before we may, however, make further discussion on this issue, we would like to mention that PW3 father of the victim and PW4 his nephew have absolutely no motive to falsely involve the appellant. The couple i.e. appellant and Dalbir Kaur had three children, the eldest being nine years of age. Darshan Kaur having died, appellant alone could properly look after his children. If the appellant also languishes in jail, in all probability these poor children shall have to be brought up by none other than PW3. There was, therefore, no question whatsoever for PW3 to have falsely implicated his soninlaw as, his going to jail clearly means looking after three children by him. The nephew of PW3 is, in any case, a natural witness of the occurrence, he was residing in the same Haveli where the appellant was residing with his family. The fact that he was residing in the same Haveli has not even been disputed. These two witnesses, in our view, have given cogent and consistent narration of the occurrence and their evidence inspires confidence. Even if it may be assumed that PW3 father of the victim had come later in point of time, presence of PW4 is certainly established and he too had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the commission of this crime. Viewed in this background, we are of the clear view that in all probability PW3 had stayed in the room of his nephew and both these two were attracted to the scene of occurrencee after they must have heard noise and the shrieks of Dalbir Kaur and by the time they reached the scene of occurrence appellant must have caused some injuries whereas the remaining were caused in their presence. Only for anxiety to become witnesses of the entire occurrence right from beginning to end, does not, however, detract from their testimony with regard to the part of occurrence they had seen. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, the contention of the learned Counsel also fails.

Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge is upheld.