Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

Harphul Singh Brar, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 24.1.1994 of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which he convicted Nirmal Singh appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further R.I. for six months.

The prosecution story in brief is that Joginder Kaur was married with Nirmal Singh accused who used to maltreat her and on account of this, she had taken up residence with Amarjit Singh, elder brother of the accused. On 25.6.1991, Harjinder Singh P.W. and his mother Joginder Kaur were present in their house when Nirmal Singh came there and told Joginder Kaur that he would teach her a lesson for having started living with Amarjit Singh. On hearing this, the deceased got up and went inside a room and Nirmal Singh followed her into the room of the house. When Harjinder Singh tried to follow them inside, Nirmal Singh threatened to kill him. In the meantime, Amarjit Singh, the elder brother of the accused had reached there and he asked Harjinder Singh as to why he was weeping. Harjinder Singh told him that Nirmal Singh had taken his mother Joginder Kaur inside the room to kill her. On opening the door, Amarjit Singh and Harjinder Singh saw that Nirmal Singh was cutting Joginder Kaur after putting his foot on her chest. On seeing Amarjit Singh and Harjinder Singh, the accused ran away from the spot taking the datar among with him. When they (Amarjit Singh and Harjinder Singh) went near the place where Joginder Kaur was lying in a pool of blood, Amarjit Singh and Harjinder Singh found that her neck had been cut and she was already dead. Harjinder Singh raised a raula but no one came there and after leaving Harjinder Singh near the deadbody, Amarjit Sigh went to lodge a report with the police. In the area of Chowk Tahli Sahib, Amarjit Singh met S.I. Kishan Singh (PW7) and before him he made a statement Ex.PW7/A which was read over to Amarjit Singh and he signed the same in token of its correctness. After making his endorsement Ex. PW7/B, S.I. Kishan Singh sent the ruqa to the policestation for registering the formal F.I.R. Ex.PW7/C. Thereafter, S.I. Kishan Singh went to the spot, prepared the Inquest Report Ex.PW5/A in relation to the deadbody of Joginder Kaur and after drawing up request for postmortem examination Ex. PW7/D and injury statement Ex.PW7/E, he entrusted the deadbody to Constables Surinder Singh and Manjit Singh for getting the postmortem conducted thereon.

The postmortem examination was conducted on the deadbody of Joginder Kaur by Dr. R.K. Gorea, who found as many as 18 injuries on the deadbody and in report Ex.PA, he indicated the cause of death to be the severance of the head from the body as a result of injury No. 8, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

After the postmortem examination, the doctor had handed over the clothes of the deceased to Constables Manjit Singh and Surinder Singh who, in turn, had produced them before S.I. Kishan Singh who took the same in possession through recovery memo Ex.PW7/H. The SubInspector had also picked up blood stained earth from the spot and after making it into a sealed parcel, took the same into possession through recovery memo Ex.PW7/F. He had also prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW7/G indicating the place of occurrence.

The accused was arrested by S.I. Kishan Singh (PW7) on 28.6.1991 in the area of Chawinda Devi and interrogated him in the presence of ASI Surinder Singh and Amarjit Singh. Upon interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a datar in the heap of toori lying in the verandah and he had the exclusive knowledge of the place of concealment and could get the same recovered. This statement Ex.PW7/J was reduced into writing and after the same had been thumbmarked by the accused and attested by the witness, the accused led the policeparty to the place of concealment indicated by him and got discovered the datar Ex.P.1 which was taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PW7/L after preparing a rough sketch Ex.PW7/K. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer got prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW4/A from Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW4) and after receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the challan was put in the Court by S.H.O. Rajinder Singh.

The accused was charged under Sections 302, 452 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge, Amritsar ultimately acquitted him of the charge u/S 452 I.P.C. and convicted him u/S 302 I.P.C., as stated above.

To prove the charge, prosecution produced as many as seven witnesses. Copy of the postmortem report Ex.PA, the genuineness of which was admitted by the accused and his counsel, was tendered into evidence by the prosecution. Surinder Kumar P.W. was given up as unnecessary by the prosecution. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PX was also tendered into evidence.

When examined u/S 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations, pleaded innocence and asserted that the present case had been planted upon him at the instance of his sister, who wanted to grab the land of his brother. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.

The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the uncorroborated evidence of the solitary child witness could not be taken into consideration for convicting the accused.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that the evidence of the child witness has been corroborated by the postmortem report and the Inquest Report and he has stood the test of crossexamination at the trial. His evidence thus, is sufficient to convict the accused.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset, we may note down that the F.I.R. has been lodged very promptly in this case. The occurrence took place at about 200 p.m. on 25.6.1991 and the report was lodged at 445/515 p.m. on the same day in the Police Station Kathu Nangal, which is about 7 miles away from the place of occurrence. Although Amarjit Singh, brother of the accused who lodged the First Information Report, has not appeared in the witnessbox as his where abouts were not known, but it is clear from the F.I.R. that the incident had taken place at about 200 p.m. and the report, in these circumstances, cannot be stated to have suffered from any delay and is rather very prompt.

The case against the appellant Nirmal Singh is based upon the sole testimony of Harjinder Singh P.W. 5, his minor son who was 14 years old at the time of his appearance before the trial Court. To test the veracity of this witness as to whether he was capable of giving evidence, following questions put to the witness and the answers given by him shall be relevant :

Q: Whether one should speak the truth or not ?

A. One should speak the truth.

Q: What happens if one tells a lie ?

A. It is a sin to tell a lie and the man is punished.

Q: Would you tell the truth ?

A. I will tell the truth.

Q: Do you believe in God?

A. Yes. I believe in God.

Harjinder Singh has deposed at the trial that he and his mother Joginder Kaur were present in the house on the fateful day. At that time, his father Nirmal Singh came to the house and told his mother that he would teach her a lesson for starting living with Amarjit Singh, the elder brother of his father. Out of fear, his mother got up and went inside a room and his father Nirmal Singh also went inside. When he (Harjinder Singh) tried to go inside, his father threatened to kill him and thereafter, closed the door from inside. In the meantime, according to the witness, Amarjit Singh, the elder brother of his father reached there and when his Taiya (elder brother of his father) asked him as to why he was weeping, he told him that his father was killing his mother inside. On opening the door, they saw that Nirmal Singh was cutting his mother after putting his foot on her chest. On seeing them, Nirmal Singh ran away from the spot after taking the datar along with him. On going inside, they found that neck of his mother had been cut and she was lying in a pool of blood. He had raised a raula but no one came there. His Taiya, i.e. Amarjit Singh had gone to lodge a report with the police. He further stated that he returned with the police. The police after reaching their house, had prepared the Inquest Report and obtained his signatures thereon.

Injury No. 8 suffered by the deceased was declared sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between death and the postmortem has been indicated as between 12 to 24 hours. This will corroborate the time at which the incident was alleged to have taken place. It has also been brought on record that during the course of investigation, the accused had made a disclosure statement and got discovered the datar Ex.P1 which was found to be stained with human blood. Injuries found on the dead body of Joginder Kaur were such as could be caused with the help of a datar and its discovery at the instance of the accused could also corroborate the eyewitness account of the manner in which the accused was found cutting Joginder Kaur with the datar.

Harjinder Singh P.W. 5, son of the accused has deposed against his father at the trial very clearly and he has also withstood the searching cross examination at the trial. Nothing has been brought out in his cross examination which would shake the inherent reliability and truthfulness of the statement by the witness. Moreover, Harjinder Singh''s near relation to the accused rules out the possibility of his deposing against him for any ulterior consideration. Harjinder Singh P.W. 5, according to our estimation based on the evidence on record, was a competent witness being quite intelligent to understand the answers and questions put to him by the trial Court. His testimony, to our mind, cannot be discarded merely because he was not an adult witness. As many as 18 incised wounds were found on the deadbody of Joginder Kaur. Injury No. 8 which severed the head from the rest of the body, was opined by the doctor to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Apart from this, in the presence of Harjinder Singh, the accused had threatened to kill Joginder Kaur and during the period when the two closetted together in the room of the house, he had given all the injuries to Joginder Kaur.

On account of this factual position, the accused had intentionally caused the injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Joginder Kaur and the accused had rightly been held to be guilty of the murder of his wife which attracts an offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment/order dated 24.1.1994 of the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant Nirmal Singh is dismissed.