Rajesh Kumar @ Mohni vs State of Punjab

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 19.10.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC i.e. for causing death of Gurmit Singh and u/s 323 IPC i.e. for causing injury to Amarjit Kaur. The Appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment, the Appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The Appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 323 IPC.

The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement (Ex.PK) of Jagan Singh, father of deceased Gurmit Singh recorded by ASI Anokh Singh on 30.4.2000 at 11.55 PM. On the basis of such statement, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur by ASI Anokh Singh. On receipt of such ruqa, FIR Ex. PK/2 was lodged by ASI Joginder Singh. The special report was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 1.5.2000 at 6.30 AM. The inquest proceedings were completed by ASI Anokh Singh vide Ex.PH on 1.5.2000. The post mortem on the dead body of Gurmit Singh was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Ravinder Bansal. He has found as many as 7 stab wounds i.e. 03 on the chest, 03 on the abdomen and 01 on left thigh. He has deposed that possibility of injuries with Ice Picker (Sua) Ex.P-1 cannot be ruled out. Amarjit Kaur, mother of the deceased was medico-legally examined by PW-2 Dr. Parbhat Kumar on 30.4.2000 at Civil Hospital, Sangrur and reddish swelling 2 cm x 2.5 cm with lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the front of upper part of left cheek in zygomatic area and left lower eyelid with fresh and clotted blood was found.

Jagan Singh, father of the deceased in his statement Ex.PK stated that he has four children i.e. three sons and one daughter. The eldest was Gurmit Singh, who was married and working with him on lathe machine. He has further stated that Rajesh Kumar @ Mohni used to visit to Gurmit Singh to their house, but he has not been coming to their house from several days. On the date of incident, at about 8.30 PM, when he reached home from workshop, he saw in the light of a bulb affixed outside the house that Rajesh Kumar armed with a Sua (used for breaking ice) in his right hand and accompanied by two boys having heir cut, whose names he did not know, but can identify. Both the unidentified boys had caught hold of his son Gurmit Singh from arms. The Appellant was saying that you had insulted him by stopping him from coming to their house. Today he will not spare him (Gurmit Singh). Both unidentified boys were also exhorting not to spare Gurmit Singh. His wife Amarjit Kaur was also present at the spot and was trying to rescue Gurmit Singh. In the meantime, within his sight, Rajesh Kumar @ Mohni gave several blows of Sua on Gurmit Singh. Three blows of Sua hit on the left side of chest of Gurmit Singh, one on the left side of flank, two on the abdomen and one on the left thigh. Rajesh Kumar also inflicted blows from the handle of Sua on the chest of Gurmit Singh. Rajesh Kumar also caused injury on the left cheek of his wife Amarjit Kaur with the handle of Sua. Gurmit Singh raised noise to save him. But all the assailants ran away alongwith Sua from the spot. In the meantime, his relative Krishan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh came and they after making arrangement of vehicle, got admitted Gurmit singh in the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he died after five minutes.

The Appellant was arrested on 13.5.2000. The Appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PN in respect of concealment of Sua on 13.5.2000. Ex.PO/1 is the recovery memo of blood stained Sua from beneath the iron peti lying in a room of his residential house. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.PT, wherein the clothes worn by the deceased and the soil lifted from the place of occurrence were found to be stained with human blood.

Jagan Singh, the author of statement Ex.PK has died before he could be examined as a witness in Court. However, his wife Amarjit Kaur appeared as PW-1. She has supported the prosecution case and alleged that it was the Appellant, who caught hold of Gurmit Singh from his coller and told him that he had insulted him after inviting to his house and that he will not leave him that day. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the accused had cut jokes twice or thrice and that her daughter-in-law is Gurpreet Kaur. She has also deposed that the house of the accused is 4-5 houses away from her house and the accused has been visiting the neighbourers. Her daughter-in-law, who is 25 years of age had made complaint to her husband and that two passers by had caught hold the arms of her son and she did not know anything about them. She has further deposed that the hospital is about one and a half mile from the spot and they reached the hospital within 10 to 15 minutes.

Gurpreet Kaur, wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of Amarjit Kaur is PW-3. She has deposed that when she was serving meals to children, she heard noise of her husband Gurmit Singh, mother-in-law Amarjit Kaur and father-in-law Jagan Singh. She came out of the house and saw that her husband lying on the roadside and that the Appellant was possessing a Ice Picker (Sua). She had recognized him when she saw after he turned. The Ice Picker (Sua) was blood stained. She has deposed that the Appellant was on visiting terms with them and he had cut jokes with her. She told her husband that the accused had cut jokes with her. She has told her husband that the accused has having an evil eye on her and that her husband restrained the accused to come to their house. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the Police met her at 3.00 AM, but she did know the distance of the Police Station from their house.

PW-6 is Krishan Singh, a relative of Jagan Singh-father of the deceased. He deposed that on 30.4.2000 he saw that Gurmeet Singh was lying on the earth and the blood was oozing from his chest, when he came to Sangrur. He arranged for a van and took the injured to the hospital and got him admitted. The injured died in hospital after about 5-6 minutes. He further deposed that after inspecting the spot, the Station House Officer returned to the hospital in about 1 1/2 hour and had brought the blood stained Sua. Accused was not brought to the hospital, as he was absconding.

PW-8 ASI Anokh Singh and PW-9 SI Gurdev Singh are the police officials, who have conducted the investigations. It is PW-8 ASI Anokh Singh, who arrested the Appellant on 13.5.2000, when he was in Police Station alongwith SI Gurdev Singh, on being produced by Amar Singh son of Bansi Ram. On the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the accused, the Sua was recovered from beneath the iron peti from the residential house of the accused. PW-9 Gurdev Singh was posted as Station House Officer, P.S. City, Sangrur on 01.5.2000, who reached the Civil Hospita, Sangrur on receiving of wireless message. It was on 13.5.2000, Amar Singh produced the accused before him in the Police Station, where he was arrested.

The prosecution has also led other evidence to complete the chain of circumstances. On the basis of such evidence led, the learned trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment as mentioned above.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that the statement of PW-1 Amarjit Kaur is materially discrepant from the statement Ex.PK of Jagan Singh. Ex.PK is the first version, wherein Jagan Singh has stated that two unidentified persons caught hold of the deceased, whereas PW-1 Amarjit Kaur in her statement has deposed that it was the Appellant, who caught hold of the deceased and inflicted injuries. Since the first version is discrepant with the alleged eye-witness account, therefore, the entire prosecution story is unreliable and is proved to be manipulated. We do not find any merit in such argument. Though in Ex.PK, Jagan Singh has stated that two unidentified persons caught hold of the deceased, but in the matter of inflicting blows by the Appellant, there is no discrepancy with the statement on oath of PW-1 Amarjit Kaur. Both are consistent in respect of inflicting of injuries by the Appellant with Ice Picker (Sua).

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that PW-2 Dr. Parbhat Kumar has deposed that the injury on the person of PW-1 Amarjit Kaur could be caused by fist blow or by fall. It is, thus, contended that Amarjit Kaur is an introduced witness, as the injury on her person is not proved to have been caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The occurrence has taken place in the house of the deceased, wherein presence of Amarjit Kaur is natural, being mother of the deceased. She has been medico-legally examined soon after the incident at about 11.15 PM on 30.4.2000. Mere possibility that the injury could be result of fist blow or on account of fall does not lead to inference that it was not caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution, when she has categorically deposed to that fact and her testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination in any manner.

It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that Sua was recovered on the date of incident itself as deposed by PW-6 Krishan Singh. Therefore, the disclosure statement Ex. PN in respect of concealment of Sua and its recovery vide Ex.PO/1 is manipulated by the prosecution. We do not find any merit in the said argument for more than one reason. As per the medical evidence, the injuries are found to be possible with Sua. Such is the statement of PW-1 Amarjit Kaur, mother of the deceased. Gurpreet Kaur PW-3 has seen the Appellant with blood stained Sua soon after the incident in the house itself. Therefore, inflicting of injuries by Sua is proved by the eye-witness account. Secondly, the statement of PW-6 Krishan Singh can be said to be erroneous to that limited extent in view of the fact that he was examined after about 2 years. It is not suggested to the Investigating Officer that Sua was already recovered as deposed by PW-6 Krishan Singh. Therefore, minor discrepancy appearing in the statement of PW-6 Krishan Singh does not affect the prosecution case in any manner.

The last argument raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that Sua was not sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Even the said argument is not material. The Sua was recovered after about 13 days of the incident. Therefore, non-sending of Sua for chemical examination does not affect the prosecution case, when the eye-witness account proves the inflicting of injuries by said Sua.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in the present appeal.