Natha Singh vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J.

This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18th May, 1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. By this judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302/325/323, Indian Penal Code. Under Section 302, IPC, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/; in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 325, IPC he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo R.I. for one month; and under Section 323, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

A case under Sections 302/325/323, IPC was registered at P.S. Abohar on 14.12.1992 at 10.30 P.M. at the instance of Paramjit Kaur D/o. Natha Singh (P.W.2) vide FIR Exhibit PH/2. The statement of P.W.2 Paramjit Kaur, who was about 9/10 years at the relevant time, was recorded by ASI Joginder Singh, who was incharge Police Post Sito Guno, P.S. Sadar Abohar at 10.15 P.M. on 14.12.1992 in the Civil Hospital, Abohar. The special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 7 A.M. on 15.12.1992 by Constable Joginder Singh, whose affidavit is Exhibit PR.

In her statement, Paramjit Kaur (PW2) stated that on 14.12.1992 at about 6 P.M., she along with her mother Gulabo (PW3) and maternal grandmother (deceased Piaro) came back to Nohra of Balwant Ram where they were residing, after picking up Narma (Cotton). When her mother was cooking meals and her maternal grandmother was cutting vegetables, her father Natha Singh started quarrelling with her maternal grandmother and also started hurling abuses upon her. He snatched the knife from the hand of her maternal grandmother and gave a blow with it on her chin and she fell down. Thereafter, her father picked up a brick and hit it at the nose of her maternal grandmother and when her mother rushed to save her maternal grandmother, her father gave brick blows on the face and head of her mother. She further stated that she raised raula while weeping and in the meantime, William son of Tek Masih also came there. Thereafter her father ran away with the knife. On hearing raula (alarm) the owner of the Nohra Balwant Ram and the Chowkidar of the village came at the spot and leaving the Chowkidar near the dead body of her maternal grandmother, who had succumbed to her injuries at the spot, Balwant Ram took her mother Gulabo in a car and got her admitted in the hospital.

P.W.3 Gulabo was medicolegally examined by Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW1) on 14.12.1992 at 7.40 P.M. After examining Gulabo, the doctor found the following injuries on her persons :

Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm on left side frontal area of scalp on the hair line, just left side to the midline. Fresh blood was coming out. Xray was advised.

Lacerated wound 2 cms. x 2 cms. just lateral to left eyebrow. Fresh blood was coming out. Xray was advised.

Lacerated wound 2 cms. x 11/2 cms. just lateral and below the left eye. Fresh blood was coming out. Xray was advised.

Swelling in front of left ear. 5 cms. x 7 cms. Xray was advised.

Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on left side chin. Fresh blood was coming out.

Bleeding from mouth on examination upper lateral incisor tooth was missing. Blood was coming out of socket and gums were swollen and torn. Corresponding to injury on the lip upper inside was present and injury to lower lip was also present.

Lower lateral incisor teeth and teeth lateral to it was shaky. Blood was coming out of gums. Advised for dental surgeon opinion.

As per report of the doctor, the patient was unfit to make any statement. He further stated that injury No. 6 was grievous and injury No. 5 was simple and the remaining injuries were kept under observation. He opined that all the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon, and the probable duration of the injuries was within six hours.

P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar also conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Piaro on 15.12.1992 at 8.30 A.M. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Piaro :

"1. Lacerated wound 5 cms. x 2 cms. on the chin right side to mid line. On dissection underlying tissue was congested and lower jaw was fractured at the side of injury.

Reddish contusion 6 cms. x 4 cms., overlying it was lacerated wound 1 cm. 1 cm. on the tip of nose and swelling all over the nose. On dissection the underlying tissue was congested and nasal bone was fractured. The contusion covered whole of nose and surrounding tissue.

Swelling 8 cms. x 5 cms. on right side of face extending from right eye to ear. On dissection the underlying tissue was congested and maxilla bone was fractured.

Swelling left temporal region 7 cms. x 5 cms. overlying it was abrasion 3 cms. x 2 cms. On dissection underlying tissue was congested. Temporal bone was fractured and clotted blood was present under the fracture site outside the dura and dura was also ruptured and blood was present on the surface of brain tissues clotted and brain tissue was lacerated. Blood was present at the base of skull also.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to injury to brain as a result of injury No. 4 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 6 to 24 hours.

P.W.4 Joginder Singh, I.O. prepared the inquest report, Exhibit P.C. on 14.12.1992 and took into possession bloodstained earth and simple earth and both were put into separate parcels and sealed. He also took into possession one brick stained with blood and the same was made into a sealed parcel with his seal. All these articles were deposited with the MHC. P.W.4 also recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On 11.1.1993 he recorded the statement of P.W.3 Gulabo when she was fit to make a statement. He arrested the accused on 25.1.1993. After completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses, P.W.1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar conducted the post mortem examination on the deadbody of deceased Piaro. He also medicolegally examined the injured Gulabo. P.W.2 Paramjit Kaur who is the stepdaughter of the appellant and the P.W.3 Gulabo who is the wife of the appellant and also was injured, are the eye witnesses. P.W.4 Joginder Singh is the Investigating Officer. P.W.5 Dr. L.C. Thukral has proved the fact that Gulabo was unfit to make any statement on 27.12.1992.

The appellant in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. pleaded that he was innocent. He, however, did not examine any witness in defence.

Relying on the evidence led by the prosecution, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur as stated earlier.

Mr. Anand Sarup, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the investigation in the present case is vitiated. He submitted that first inquest report was prepared by the I.O. and thereafter the first information report was recorded. He submitted that his fact is proved from the inquest report as the name of the accused has not been mentioned in the inquest report. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Yadhvir and others v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RCR 568.

The learned counsel further submitted that the FIR was recorded at the instance of P.W.2. Paramjit Kaur but the statement of P.W.2 does not bear her signatures of thumb impression. He, therefore, contended that the investigation of the case was not fair.

The learned counsel further pointed out certain contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. He submitted that P.W.2, in her statement, has stated that at the time of occurrence, her maternal grandmother (deceased) was cutting the vegetable with a knife and that knife was snatched by her father (appellant) who inflicted injury on the chin of her maternal grandmother with that knife but P.W.3 Gulabo who is the other eyewitness did not mention any injury inflicted by the appellant with that knife. He also submitted the P.W.2, in her crossexamination, had stated that she did not know when Piaro was killed. He further submitted that P.W. 2 Paramjit Kaur, in her statement, had stated that her real father had died but P.W.3 Gulabo, in her statement, had stated that her first husband Pappu (who was the real father of P.W.2) was alive. He also submitted that P.W.2 at the relevant time was only child of 7 years and as such, her statement cannot be relied upon for conviction of the appellant. He further submitted that the recovery of the brick had not been shown in the inquest report. The learned counsel also submitted that the place of occurrence has not been proved. He submitted that P.W.2, in her statement had stated that the occurrence happened in the Narma (cotton) fields but as per site plan, the occurrence happened in the verandah of the farm house.

The learned counsel also submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, William had also reached the place of occurrence and he also raised raula but the prosecution has failed to examine this independent witness. He submitted that nonexamination of this independent witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Lastly, the learned counsel contended that even as per the case of the prosecution, no case is made out against the appellant under Section 302, IPC and at the most, present case could be under Section 302, Part I IPC. He submitted that there was no premeditation or any motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. There was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Sreedharan v. State of Kerala, 1992(1) RCR 523 and a Division Bench judgment of this court in Criminal Appeal No. 365DB of 1994 (Sewa Singh v. The State of Punjab) decided on 4th July, 1997.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, learned AAG Punjab submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant has wrongly submitted that the name of the accused was not mentioned in the inquest report. He submitted that in fact, the statement of P.W.2 which contained the name of the accused is a part of the inquest report Exhibit PC. He further submitted that the absence of signatures/thumb impression of the complainant on her statement recorded by the I.O. does not prejudice the accused particularly when the complainant had been examined before the learned trial court. He submitted that at the most it shows the negligence on the part of the I.O. but this is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Regarding the place of occurrence, the learned AAG submitted that even as per the site plan the place of occurrence has been shown the farm house which itself is situated in the fields. Regarding the injury inflicted on the chin of the deceased with the knife, the learned counsel submitted that inflicting of injury with a knife and picking up of a brick is a continuous occurrence and in any case this discrepancy was not of material nature.

The learned AAG further submitted that William had reached the place of occurrence after the injuries had already been inflicted on the deceased and PW 3 Gulabo. He, therefore, contended that nonexamination of William cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1173.

With regard to the nature of the offence, the learned AAG submitted that as per the post mortem report, the appellant had caused four injuries and all were on the head/face of the deceased. He, therefore, contended that in view of these facts, it is a clear case under section 302, IPC and not under Section 304, Part I, IPC.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the records, we find that there is no delay in recording the FIR. The occurrence took place at 6 P.M. on 14.12.1992 in the farm house of Balwant Ram in village Datarianwali which is situated at a distance of 13 kms. from P.S. Sadar Abohar. P.W.3 Gulabo who was also injured along with deceased Piaro Bai was taken to the Civil Hospital, Abohar and on receipt of information from the Civil Hospital, P.W. 4 A.S.I. Joginder Singh reached the Hospital where the doctor opined that PW 3 Gulabo Bai was unfit to make a statement. Then at 10.15 P.M. he recorded in the hospital the statement of P.W.2 Paramjit Kaur, daughter of PW 3 Gulabo Bai, who was about 8 years old. Thereafter, the FIR Exhibit PH/2 was recorded at 10.30 P.M. at P.S. Abohar. Thus, there was no delay in recording the FIR. The special report was delivered at the place of the Ilaqa Magistrate on the next day at 7 A.M. by Constable Jagtar Singh and thus there is some delay in delivering the special report but this delay had been satisfactorily explained by Constable Jagtar Singh in his affidavit Exhibit PR. In this affidavit, Jagtar Singh has stated that on the night of 14.12.1992 he knocked the door of the Ilaqa Magistrate but none opened the door and at about 7 AM on the next day when the door was opened, he delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. There is no crossexamination by the accused on this point.

As per the case of the prosecution, the occurence in the present case, was seen by PW2 Paramjit Kaur and P.W.3 Gulabo Bai who was also injured and remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Abohar, for a period of 20 days. From the evidence on record, we find that the statements of both these eye witnesses are consistent on all material points. Both the witnesses have stated that the accused had inflicted injuries on deceased Piaro Bai with brick and Piaro Bai died at the spot after receiving those injuries. Both have also stated that accused had also injured PW 3 Gulabo Bai with a brick. P.W.3 further stated that as a result of the blow of the brick, one of her teeth was broken. The ocular version of these eye witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. It is true that P.W.2 Paramjit Kaur, in her statement before the Police had stated that besides inflicting injuries with the brick, the accused had inflicted one injury on the chin of deceased with a kitchen knife but PW 3 Gulabo Bai had not mentioned this injury in her statement, but this discrepancy is not of much relevance as PW3 had only omitted to mention this injury though this injury is also corroborated by the medical evidence. From these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned trial Court that the accused caused the death of Piaro Bai by giving brick blows on her head and also caused injuries on the person of Gulabo Bai.

Now we deal with the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was recorded after preparation of the inquest report as the inquest report does not contain the particulars of the assailant, we do not find any substance in this contention. A mere perusal of the inquest report shows that the statement of the complainant P.W.2 which contains all these particulars, is a part of the inquest report.

As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the investigation of the case was vitiated as the statement of PW2 who was a child of about 8 years, does not bear her signatures or her thumb impressions, we do not find any substance in this contention. As stated earlier, PW 3 Gulabo Bai who herself was injured at the hands of the accused, has fully supported the case of the prosecution and her statement is fully corroborated by the other eyewitness PW2 Paramjit Kaur and also by the medical evidence. The absence of signatures/thumb impressions of PW2 in her statement recorded by the Police at best shows negligence on the part of the investigating officer which cannot be held fatal to the case of the prosecution as by this omission no prejudice has been caused to the accused.

We do not find any substance also in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that failure to examine William was fatal to the prosecution case. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the State that William was not eyewitness as he had reached after the injuries had been inflicted by the accused. As stated in the earlier part of the judgment, the two eye witnesses, P.W.2 Paramjit Kaur and P.W.3 Gulabo Bai have fully proved the case of the prosecution. Even failure to examine other eye witnesses was not fatal. Here reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardev Singh v. Harbhej Singh, JT 1997(1) SC 29 : 1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 395.

The learned counsel for the appellant had also contended that there were certain other discrepancies in the statements of the two eye witnesses but we do not find any merit in this contention also. The learned counsel has submitted that PW2, in her examinationinchief, had stated that she did not know when Piaro Bai was killed but we find that in her crossexamination, she clearly stated that Piaro Bai was murdered when the sun was about to set. The learned counsel has also submitted that though PW 2 Paramjit Kaur, in her statement has stated that her real father had died but PW 3 Piaro Bai had stated that her first husband (real father of PW 2) was still alive but this discrepancy is not relevant for the decision in the present case. Even otherwise, it has come on record that PW3 had married the appellant 3 years prior to the incident and at that time, PW2 who was a child of about 5 years, might have been told by her mother that her real father had died. We also do not find any discrepancy in the place of occurrence as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

As regards the alternative argument submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present case at best could be under Section 304 Part I, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC, We do not find any merit in this submission. From the evidence on record, it has clearly been established that the accused/appellant started quarrelling with the deceased Piaro Bai, hit at the temporal region of Piaro Bai and when her daughter P.W.3 Gulabo Bai tried to rescue her mother, the accused gave her brick blow on her lip teeth and another brick blow hitting on her head and face. Thereafter, the accused gave second brick blow which also hit on the temporal region of deceased Piaro Bai who died at the spot. These injuries were inflicted by the appellant without any provocation from Piaro Bai. As per the evidence of PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, the cause of death of Piaro Bai was injury to brain as a result of injury No. 4 (which was on temporal region of Piaro Bai) which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all these injuries were antemortem in nature. These facts would clearly indicate that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury which was objectively found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Therefore, in the present case, Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted. The view we have taken finds full support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Vedanaygam, 1995(1) RCR 231 (SC) : 1995 SCC (Crl.) 231.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.