Megh Singh vs The State of Haryana

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—In the evening of 3.8.1999 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Kiran Devi was present along with her sons Satbir and Kanwar Pal in her fields. Satbir was ploughing the fields, whereas the other son Kanwar Pal was sitting by her side. These happy moments of Kiran Devi and her family ended abruptly when she was run over by a tractor driven by the accused, Megh Singh, with whom family had litigation with regard to land.

The occurrence took place on 3.8.1999 at 4.30 p.m. in the area of village Nimbi, District Mohindergarh. The tractor of Jagmal Singh was requisitioned and the deceased was removed to Civil Hospital, Mohindergarh by her sons Satbir, PW9, and Kanwar Pal, PW10. On receipt of ruqa from the Hospital, SI Abhimanyu recorded the statement of Satbir, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered by SI Inder Pal at 8.30 p.m. on the same day. The special report was sent through Constable Dharmender to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh.

The brief facts of the present case are reflected in para 2 of the judgment of the learned trial Court, which have been re-produced as under:

On 3.8.1999, at 6.40 p.m., the doctor of Community Health Centre, Mahendergarh sent Ruqa (PA) to SHO, Police Station, Mahendergarh that Shrimati Kiran Devi wife of Bhim Singh, aged 50 years, resident of village Nimbi, expired while she was being brought to the hospital due to multiple injures received in a road side accident and that the deceased was brought to the hospital at 6.20 p.m. by Kanwar Pal son of Bhim Singh (son of deceased). On receipt of this Ruqa, Assistant Sub Inspector, Abhimanyu, went to the hospital and recorded statement of Satbir (complainant) son of Bhim Singh. The complainant stated that he was an agriculturist and his father had got one more brother namely Khem Singh who has already died. Megh Singh is the son of Khem Singh, the uncle of the complainant, aged 35 years. The complainant has got four brothers and the father of the complainant is also alive. The complainant party and accused Megh Singh own 7 killas of land each and the land of Megh Singh is irrigated with the help of water of well. Similarly, land measuring 5 and half killas of the complainant party is also irrigated with the help of the water of said well which is jointly owned by the two parties. Apart from this, the complainant party also owns one and quarter killas of land more which is being cultivated by them. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 3.8.1999, the complainant was ploughing the land measuring one and quarter killas of land situated in the area of village Nimbi. At about 4.30/5.00 p.m., when the complainant had already ploughed half killa of land, accused Megh Singh came there with the tractor. Kanwar Pal the elder brother of the complainant and Kiran Devi mother of the complainant were separately sitting in the field at the time. Megh Singh straightway brought the tractor towards the complainant in order to run over him, but the complainant hid himself behind a JANTI tree and in this manner, the complainant saved himself from being run over by concealing himself behind a JANTI tree. The accused took the tractor towards the mother and brother of the complainant and both of them tried to save themselves, but accused Megh Singh over run Kiran Devi, the mother of the complainant and thereafter the accused ran away from the field with his tractor towards village Nimbhehra. The brother of the complainant saved himself with a great difficulty. PW Siri Ram son of Jagan Nath also witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, the complainant and his brother Kanwar Pal took Kiran Devi to Civil Hospital, Mahendergarh in injured condition and after reaching the hospital, the doctor declared her to be dead. The motive for the offence was that accused Megh Singh was demanding half share in the land measuring one and quarter killas land and on the date of occurrence, he asked Madan Singh the uncle of the complainant that he (Madan Singh) should get delivered to him out of land measuring one and quarter killas of land, otherwise, he would himself obtain the same and Madan Singh told this factum to the complainant on the same day. However, the complainant told him (Madan Singh) that he was at liberty to partition the land, because, more land would fall to their share, upon which Madan Singh asked the complainant that first of all he would get himself satisfied. However, instead of waiting for the efforts of Madan Singh, accused tried to over run the complainant, but when he failed to over run the complainant, he over ran Kiran Devi, the mother of the complainant with the tractor. On this statement of the complainant, the present case was registered.

Inquest report on the dead body was prepared by SI Abhimanyu, PW14, Investigating Officer and the dead body was sent for post mortem.

Dr. Sanjay Bishnoi, PW1, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Kiran Devi and noticed the following injuries:

12 x 8cms a lacerated wound situated over right frontal, parietal and temporal region of skull. Bone deep with fracture of temporal bone.

10 cms x 8 cms bruise situated over lateral and posterior side of right side of chest with fracture of 4th to 9th ribs. The lungs underlying the fractured ribswis lacerated. Massive haemotherax was present.

3 cms x 5 cms abrasion situated over lateral aspect of right fore-arm. 2 cms below joint.

2 cms x 5 cms abrasion situated over lateral aspect of right fore-arm, 6 cms above the wrist joint. Pleura was pale and ruptured on right side. Right lung pale and as already described. Heart Pericardium pale and both the chambers of the heart were empty. Large vessels, abdominal wall and organs of generation were healthy. Stomach was pale and contained semi-digested food material. Small intestines was pale and contained chyme and gases. Large intestine was pale and contained faecal matter and gases. Bladder was pale and contained fuo CC of urine. Remaining organs were pale. Opinion

The cause of death, in this case, in my opinion, was syncope due to massive haemothorax caused by injury No. 2. The probable time between the injury and death was within one hour and between the death and the post-mortem was within 24 hours.

The doctor also opined that injuries No. 2 and 3 were possible by an accident with a tractor. As per ruqa, Exhibit PA, sent by Dr. Sanjay Vashisht, the instant case was referred to as road side accident.

The spot inspection was carried out by SI Abhimanyu, PW14. The blood stained earth was lifted from the spot. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and the spot was photographed. Blood stained clothes were also taken into possession which were sent to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for analysis. As per the report, Exhibit PG, human blood was found on Peticot, blouse and Saree, whereas blood had dis-integrated from the earth. The accused was arrested on 6.8.1999.

After completion of investigation, report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared. The learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, charge-sheeted the accused on 15.12.1999 under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code.

To establish its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Sanjay Bishnoi, Medical Officer as PW1, MHC Attar Singh as PW2, Constable Ranbir Singh as PW3, Constable Dharamender as PW4, SI Inder Pal as PW5, SI Krishan Chand as PW6, Pratap Singh as PW7, Constable Ram Kirpal as PW8, Complainant -Satbir as PW9, Kanwar Pal as PW10, Jagmal Singh as PW11, Madan Singh as PW12, Dharampal as PW13 and SI Abhimanyu, Investigating Officer of the case as PW14.

Before the learned trial Court, Satbir, PW9, and Kanwar Pal, PW10, supported the case of the prosecution. Jagmal Singh, PW11, admitted the fact that land in question was mortgaged with him. But about 3-4 months back the same had been redeemed. However, he failed to produce any document pertaining to mortgage. The said mortgage was stated to be a verbal mortgage. Madan Singh, PW12, made a statement that accused Megh Singh had told him on the day of occurrence that he was owner to the extent of half share in 1-1/4 killas of land being ploughed by Satbir Singh. He further stated that he had brought this fact to the knowledge of Satbir who said that a part of his land was under occupation of accused Megh Singh. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not related to any of the parties to the instant dispute.

SI Abhimanyu, PW14, also supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that spot inspection was conducted by him. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot in the presence of Dharam Pal and Rattan Singh. He also stated that the place of occurrence was photographed. He further stated that the statements of Siri Ram and Jagmal Singh were recorded. The only independent witness Siri Ram Gujar was given up.

After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused pleaded false implication. He made a specific statement that incident might have taken place in a different manner and at a different place and under different circumstances. The complainant-party in collusion with the police falsely fabricated the present case against him in order to grab his share of seven killas of land and the tubewell. Thereafter, the defence closed its evidence.

Learned trial Court after appreciating the record reached to the conclusion that there was no consistency in the statements of PW9 and PW10. The presence of Kanwar Pal is established from the hospital record.

So far Siri Ram Gujar is concerned, he was given up with a presumption that he would not have supported the prosecution version accordingly, the learned trial Court recorded that non-examination of Siri Ram, the independent witness, was not fatal to the case of the prosecution for the reason that Satbir and his brother Kanwar Pal eye witnesses and sons of the deceased, would never spare the real culprit and involve the accused. Learned trial Court recorded that as the accused had been demanding half share of the land which was not acceded to by the complainant, therefore, initially he tried to kill Satbir and when he failed in his attempt, then tried to kill his brother Kanwar Pal, but Kanwar Pal also saved himself and ultimately Kiran Devi, the mother became his victim. The statement of Madan Singh, PW12, gathers significance on account of the fact that the accused, conveyed him that he also had share in the land ploughed by Satbir. This fact was conveyed by Madan Singh, PW12 to Satbir as well.

Jagmal Singh, PW11, also supported the case of the prosecution as regards the mortgage of land, and its subsequent redemption.

As per the opinion of Doctor Sanjay Bishnoi, PW1, the injuries on the person of Kiran Devi, deceased were possible by accident with a tractor and injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was specifically observed by the learned trial Court that the case of the prosecution was that the accused run over Kiran Devi with tractor, therefore, the case would be called death with tractor but the same could not be said to be on account of rash and negligent act, rather, it was intention of the accused to kill any of the three persons present in the fields belonging to the complainant-party.

On the basis of the evidence led, the learned trial Court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.

Against the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dated 10/11.10.2000, the accused preferred the present appeal. This appeal was admitted on 6.12.2000 by this Court.

Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the occurrence took place at 4.30 p.m. but the statement of complainant Satbir was recorded at 8.15 p.m., though the police reached the hospital immediately on receipt of ruqa from the hospital. In this manner, the interregnum period was utilised by the prosecution in consultations and deliberations to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. It was next contended that the only independent witness, namely Siri Ram, was not examined by the prosecution. No reliance could be placed on the statement of Satbir, PW9, and Kanwar Pal, PW10, who were interested witnesses and had a motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellant.

Further contention made is that as per the first version given to Doctor by Kanwar Pal, PW10, the injury was stated to be received in a road side accident, but subsequently changed the version that it was the appellant who ran over the deceased.

The medical evidence contradicts the ocular version as no tyre marks were noticed on the body of the deceased. Even the blood stained earth allegedly lifted from the spot was found dis-integrated. The complainant taking advantage of the death of his mother falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. It was further contended that the presence of eye witness in the present case was not proved. The only independent eye witness Siri Ram Gujar was not cited as witness. There was improvement in the statement of Satbir, PW9, as no reference of Jagmal Singh was made in the FIR. Jagmal Singh, PW11, stated that the mortgage was verbal and, therefore, there was nothing on record to prove the mortgage. Madan Singh, PW12, was not the resident of the same Mohalla. In the circumstances, it was highly improbable that the accused-appellant would go to him in the morning and make a statement regarding his share of land ploughed by the complainant.

There was no reference of motive in the statement of Kanwar Pal, PW10. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged motive, therefore, the onus to prove the same was on the complainant-party. In the circumstances, the motive in the instant case was not proved. As per the site plan, no ploughing instruments were found and no tyre marks were seen in the fields. The presence of Satbir, PW9, was doubtful as his name was not mentioned in the ruqa. No blood was found in the fields. Run over theory was not supported by the Doctor.

On behalf of the State, it was argued that the accused-appellant first tried to hit Satbir who ran towards point ''A'' (as shown in the site plan), where his mother and brother were sitting, thereafter, the accused-appellant gave a chase to Kanwar Pal and Kiran Devi, the deceased. Kanwar Pal was able to save himself, whereas the deceased was not so fortunate. As regards the ruqa, wherein it was recorded that it was a road side accident, it was submitted that FIR was not delayed. The first version came at 8.15 p.m. and at 8.30 p.m., the formal FIR was registered. From the photographs taken during the spot inspection, it was clear that there were zig zag tyre marks on the land and the entire land freshly ploughed is clearly visible, which proves the prosecution version.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the records.

From the record, it stands established that the partition of the land between the parties to the litigation had taken place. Both the parties are closely related to each other. From the statement of Jagmal Singh, PW11, it is clear that the land was under mortgage with him which was recently redeemed. From the statement of Madan Singh, PW12, it is made out that the accused-appellant wanted share in 1-1/4 killas of land which was being ploughed by the complainant. This fact was shared by Madan Singh with the complainant as well.

The statements of Satbir, PW9 and Kanwar Pal, PW10, fully corroborates with each other. It is also clear from the statement of Dr. Sanjay Vashisht, PW1, who conducted the post-mortem examination, that although no tyre marks were visible on the dead body, but the injuries suffered by the deceased were possible in the circumstances put forth by the complainant. The case of the prosecution is further fortified by the FSL report, Exhibit PG. The human blood was detected from the clothes of the deceased though the blood had dis-integrated from the earth lifted from the spot, but, this would not, in any manner, dillute the case of the prosecution, as it is clear from the statement of SI Abhimanyu, PW14, that blood stained earth was lifted from the spot. He very categorically supported the case of the prosecution.

The presence of eye witnesses is fully proved from the fact that Satbir, PW9, recorded the statement before the police on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. The name of Kanwar Pal, PW10, finds mention in the medical record as he took the deceased to the hospital, which is sufficient to conclude that Satbir and Kanwar Pal were present at the place of occurrence along with their mother.

As regards motive, we feel that motive is not a necessary factor though a relevant one to be established by the prosecution, but it may not assume importance in the cases which rest on the evidence of eye witnesses. As regards the submission that onus was upon the prosecution to prove the motive, we are of the opinion that the prosecution may prove a motive for the crime if it helps them to establish their case, as a matter of circumstantial evidence, but, as such, they are not legally bound to prove motive because a motiveless crime, in our opinion, remains a crime, therefore, we hold that proof of motive or ill-will is not necessary in the present case where there is clear eye witness account against the accused-appellant.

We have also seen the photographs taken at the time of spot inspection which show the zig zag tyre marks at the place of occurrence. From the photographs, it is clearly made out that the land was freshly ploughed. The site plan, Exhibit PO, available on record also supports the case of prosecution.

In these circumstances, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Judgment and order dated 10/11.10.2000 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby maintained.