Prem Lal vs State of Punjab

Arvind Kumar, J.—The present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby in case FIR No. 43 dated 6.3.2001 registered u/s 302 IPC, the present Appellant-accused, Prem Lal, has been convicted for committing the murder of Raj Pal and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year.

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 6.3.2001, complainant Paramjit Singh got recorded his statement to the police that he runs auto parts business in Ludhiana. One of his sisters, namely, Sunita, was married to the present accused-Appellant Prem Lal about 15 years back. Two sons and a daughter were born out of the wedlock. Since the accused-Appellant used to quarrel with his sister Sunita off and on, she started staying with her parents from the last one year. Thereafter, accused used to go to his in-laws'' house and threaten the complainant and his father ( father-in-law of accused) that if they did not send Sunita with him, he would murder them. Since complainant''s father Raj Pal (since deceased) was unemployed, he was temporarily doing the work of cycle repairs on the road-side in front of new Telephone Exchange Building in Block-E, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana and used to leave for work at 8 AM and returned to his house at 7 PM. On the fateful day, i.e. 6.3.2001, at about 1.45 PM, when the complainant and Sunita were taking meals at lunch time, for their father and were just 200 yards away from their father''s cycle repair shop, they noticed the present accused-Appellant going to the shop on his three-wheeler bearing registration No. PB-10AQ/3573. He was carrying with him a Toka (iron meat-cutter), with which he gave a blow on the person of their father who was sitting and when in order to save himself, he rose up and tried to escape but accused within their sight, gave another blow with the Toka on his head to which their father brought forward his hands and in that process, the blow hit his left arm near the wrist. Thereafter, accused gave several blows with the Toka on his head and face. Upon an alarm raised by complainant and Sunita, the accused-Appellant fled away from the spot along with the Toka. When their father was being removed to the Civil Hospital, he died on the way. The complainant then took the dead-body of his father to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and after leaving his sister Sunita there, met the police party and got recorded the present statement. The Investigating Officer, SI Pawanjit, after making his endorsement, Exhibit PD/1 on the said statement, got registered an FIR vide Exhibit PD/2. He then went to the spot and got the place of occurrence photographed besdes lifting blood stained earth and completing other necessary formalities. An inquest report was then prepared vide Exhibit PM on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, upon receipt of a secret information, the Investigating Officer conducted Nakabandi on the Ludhiana-Ferozepur road outside the mini secretariat, Ludhiana. At about 9 PM, the accused was noticed coming from the side of Bharat Nagar Chowk on his afore-said three wheeler. He was apprehended and formally arrested by the Investigating Officer. Accused produced the iron-meat cutter stained with blood, from the tool-box of his three-wheeler. After preparing the rough sketch, Exhibit PF, of the said weapon, the Investigating Officer took the same into possession vide memo. Exhibit PF/1, besides taking into possession the three-wheeler of the accused vide Exhibit PF/2. Thereafter, the post-mortem on the dead-body was conducted.

Upon completion of investigation of the case, accused-Appellant was challaned. After being produced in Court, accused was charged u/s 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. R.S. Grewal, PW-2 Surinder Singh, PW-3 Constable Sucha Singh, PW-4 Paramjit Singh, PW-5 Sunita Rani, PW-6 HC Harmesh Lal, PW-7 Constable Davinder Singh, PW-8 ASI Surjit Singh, PW-9 Harwinder Singh, Draftsman and PW-10 SI Pawanjit, PW-11, and after tendering into evidence the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide Exhibit PN, closed its evidence.

Thereafter, the statement of the accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by putting him incriminating evidence qua him to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. He took up the plea that he was residing in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, along with his wife and children. He had rented out a room to one Raja Ram, a resident of Muradabad (UP). Said Raja Ram although was married but at that time, a matrimonial dispute between him and his wife was on. Since he(accused) was plying three-wheeler and used to come late in the house, he was not able to provide proper time to his wife and children and being dissatisfied with him, his wife developed illicit relations with the said tenant Raja Ram. Then she left with him in the last week of April, 2000 and about two weeks, she had sent a registered letter to him containing a photostat copy of marriage agreement along with one mutual divorce agreement which belonged to Raja Ram. He further pleaded that it is only when on 6.3.2001 he was just to start from Bus Stand, Ludhiana, the police apprehended him and falsely implicated him in the case. However, in defence, he did not lead any evidence.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 7.3.2002 held the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal by him.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye-witnesses, if any. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place at 1.45 PM on 6.3.2001. PW-4 Paramjit Singh first removed his father to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, after arranging an ambulance but he died on the way and subsequently, the FIR was lodged by him which was recorded at 4.25 PM and the special report was in the hands of the Magistrate on the same day at 9.30 PM. The FIR is thus, not delayed as alleged but rather prompt and rules out every possibility of consultations and deliberations. The FIR contains the full narrative of the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the name of the accused-Appellant along with the weapons used in the commission of crime.

The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of PW-4 Paramjit Singh who is the son of the deceased. PW-5 Sunita, daughter of the deceased was the wife of the accused-Appellant. PW-4 Paramjit Singh in his statement has categorically stated that though his sister Sunita was married with the accused for the last 15/16 years and they were having three children but accused-Appellant had been quarrelling with her and for this reason, she had been residing with them for the last one year. Resultantly, the accused-Appellant had been visiting them and extending threats that he would kill them if she was not sent with him. Even on the day of occurrence, when he and his sister were going to their father, had seen accused-Appellant getting down from his three wheeler bearing registration No. PB-10AQ/3573, having a Toka (dagger) with him and he tried to hit their father Raj Pal but their father rose up and tried to run away. However, accused-Appellant in their presence gave a blow with the dagger on the head of their father who in order to save himself raised his hands but in that process, the blow hit near the wrist joint of his left arm and thereafter, within their sight, the accused gave several blows on the person of their father, hitting his head, face and other parts of the body. The statement of PW-4 Paramjit Singh is duly corroborated by PW-5 Sunita on material particulars. Their statements have been questioned on account of relationship. No doubt, both the witnesses are related inter se and so as with the deceased but this relationship itself cannot be said to be suffice to discard their statements. There is no absolute law that evidence of a relation witness is not entitled to any weight. But this very circumstance would add to the value of their evidence because they would be interested in ensuring that the real culprits responsible for the murder are punished and not the innocent persons. PW-4 Paramjit Singh has given details of the occurrence as indicated above. Both of them were subjected to cross-examination and they stood firm to their stand. Their presence has been disputed on the ground that they had not intervened but it cannot be over-looked that the accused-Appellant was armed with a Toka(weapon meant for cutting meat) and in that situation, it was not expected from the witnesses to intervene as the element of self-preservation is supreme in human being. PW-5 Sunita is the wife of the accused-Appellant and she would be the last person to falsely implicate him.

Another contention that no independent witness has been examined in this case, is again meritless. No doubt, the occurrence had taken place during day time and at a busy place, but in our country, there is a general tendency amongst the witnesses to shun giving evidence in the Courts because of the cumbersome and dilatory procedure in our Courts and therefore, nobody wants to be a witness in a murder case or in a serious offence. Thus, due to non-examination of any independent witness, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. It is evident that both the witnesses were going to their father along with the meals for him as it was a lunch time. It has also come in evidence that their house is only 200 yards away from the place of occurrence and there is nothing unnatural on their part to visit their father for delivering meals to him. Further, the defence of the accused-Appellant that he being a three-wheeler driver, had been coming late in his house and in that situation, his wife Sunita developed illicit relations with his tenant Raja Ram and left in his company in the last week of April, 2000 and after two weeks, had sent a registered letter to him, i.e. accused, containing a copy of marriage agreement along with copy of mutual divorce agreement pertaining to said Raja Ram and as such, he has been falsely implicated on suspicion, is again not sustainable for variety of reasons. Firstly, the accused-Appellant is not shown to have taken any steps right against his wife for illicit relations with Raja Ram; secondly, he has led no evidence to prove any such illicit relationship of his wife Sunita with Raja Ram; thirdly, it has neither been suggested to complainant or Sunita in their cross-examination that Sunita had illicit relations with Raja Ram and due to that reason, Sunita might have falsely implicated him in this case; and fourthly, a lady having three children would not elope with someone else leaving everyone behind.

The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. PW-1 Dr. R.S. Grewal had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Raj Pal on 7.3.2001 at 10 AM and found as many as eight incised wounds on his person. He has opined that the probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. The medical evidence is in consonance with the ocular account so far as the seat of injuries and time of occurrence is concerned. Accused-Appellant was arrested on 6.3.2001. Toka(dagger), Exhibit PF/1 and Pant, Exhibit PF/3, were taken into possession. Both were stained with blood. The same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The report of the FSL, Exhibit PN, indicates that the "Toka Loha" and "Pant" are stained with human blood.

In view of the discussion made in the earlier paragraphs, the accused-Appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the offence committed. No interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed.