Paramjit alias Ghudda vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Paramjit alias Ghudda stands convicted on the substantive charge of murder and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on 26th February, 1986. He has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

The prosecution case in short is that Lali deceased and Paramjit accused were present in the plot situated near their house. Pali PW was also present with them. Kuldip Singh PW came, there after delivering tea at the factory of Bedis situated nearby and Tarlok Singh father of the deceased was present in his house. It is alleged that the accused owed certain amount to Lali deceased and the latter made a demand for that amount. In reply to this demand the, accused gave fist blows to Lali and the latter also gave him a fist blow in return and in that process they PWs inter grappling with each other. Kuldip Singh and Palli intervened and separated them and in the meantime Tarlok Singh was also attracted to the spot. The accused then left for his house and returned to the same place within a few minutes armed with a dagger and attacked Lali with his dagger giving a blow in the chest as a result of which he fell down on the ground thereafter, the accused bolted away with his dagger. Lali was removed to the S. G. T. B. hospital Amritsar, by Kuldip Singh and Pali.

Dr. Goverdhan Dass Puri PW 2 examined Lali at 4.15 P.M. and declared him dead. Tarlok Singh left for the Police Station from the spot and he having met the Sub Inspector Tarsem Lal made a statement Ex. PG before him and on the basis of that statement formal F.I.R. Ex. PG/2 was registered at the Police Station by the Assistant Sub Inspector Krishan Kumar; Tarsem Lal Sub Inspector went to the said hospital, held inquest and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. Inspector Surjit Singh lifted blood stained earth from the spot and arrested the accused. Dagger Ex. P. 1 was recovered from his possession. The Exs. P.G. and shirt Ex. P.7 worn by the accused, having been stained with blood were also taken into possession by the said Investigating Officer.

Dr. R. S. Grewal PWs. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lali on 26th February, 1985 at about 12.15 P.M. and found the following injuries:

Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the front end left side of the chest, 7 cm away from the left nipple at 8''0 clock position.

An abrasion 2 cm x 11/2 cm. on the left side of the fore head, 2 cm above the inner angle of the left eyebrow.

An abrasion 21/2 cm. x 1 cm. on the front of the tight knee joint. On dissection, injury No. 1 after piercing the chest wall entered into the fourth intercostal space then piercing the paricardium and right ventricle heart measuring 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. Death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to the heart which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be instantaneous and between death and postortem within about 20 hours. After necessary investigation, the accused was challaned and committed.

The ocular testimony consists of Kuldip Singh, PW. 4 Pali PW.5 and Tarlok Singh PW. 6. Sub Inspector Tarsem Lal PW. 15 and Inspector Surjit Singh PW. 16 are the Investigating Officers. The remaining evidence is of, formal nature. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that because injuries to the deceased in self defence but led no evidence in defence.

The unimpeachable and disinterested nature of the prosecution evidence in the case is manifest on this record. Kuldip Singh PW 4, Pali PW. 5 and Tarlok Singh PW. 6 have given consistent accounts of the mode and manner of the sudden assault launched upon Lali deceased. The occurrence having taken place yet in day light and the parties being well known to each other, there is thus not a shadow of doubt about the identity of the assailant. Nothing whatsoever has been elicited in the crossexamination of either of these three eyewitnesses which may detract from the weight of their testimony. No animus is suggested qua either of the three witnesses which could remotely motivate them to level so serious. A charge as murder without patently good cause to do so. We accept the direct testimony of these eyewitnesses. The medical testimony in the case is entirely corroborative of the ocular account. Indeed, the learned counsel for the appellant raised no argument based thereon in support of his client''s case.The First Information Report lodged by Tarlok Singh, father of the deceased, is further corroborative of his statement given on oath. No infirmity could be pointed out either in the mode and manner of the conduct of the investigation by Inspector Surjit Singh PW.16. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is thus more than amply proved on the record.

Probably, unable to lay and serious challenge to the prosecution case, Mr. H.L. Sibal has not offered any serious or detailed criticism to the testimony. However, be contended that even accepting the prosecution case, the intention to kill may not be attributed to the appellant. There appears to be. substance in his contention. The fourth exception to Section 300, Indian Penal Code runs thus :

Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender''s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."

It emerges from the prosecution evidence that when Lali deceased demanded money from the appellant, this led to exchange of fist below between them and in that process they started grappling with each other. It is also borne out from the evidence of the eyewitnesses that immediately after the said incident, the appellant went to his house and returned to the spot with a dagger and plunged that dagger in the chest of the deceased which proved fatal. It is thus clear from the evidence that the appellant had given a fatal blow to the deceased upon a sudden quarrel. There is no evidence that the appellant took any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. He merely gave a single blow on the chest of the deceased which ultimately proved fatal. He did not go on assaulting the deceased even though he fell dawn on the ground on receipt of the injury. We are clearly of the opinion that the offence committed by the appellant will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he is punishable under Section 304, Indian Penal Code. The second question is whether first part or second part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code, would apply. First part deals with the first two clauses of Section 299 while second part deals with the third clause. In this case, the appellant caused the bodily injury on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death. Chest is a vital part of the body. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant caused the death of the deceased with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The offence would accordingly come under the first part of Section 304 Indian Penal Code.

In the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, is set aside and be is convicted under Section6n 304, Part 1, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,800/ In case of default of payment of fine he shall suffer one year''s rigorous imprisonment, Fine, if realised, whole of it shall be paid to Tarlok Singh PW as compensation.

The appeal is allowed to the extent noted above.