Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Ramesh Kumar (23) was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by order dated June 12, 1990. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

Parkash Chand Kabeer, to be referred as the deceased hereafter, was living in a house in Mohalla Shri Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, New Shimlapuri Ludhiana, along with his two sons, Ramesh Kumar accusedappellant and Vinod Kumar. On May 23, 1989, at about 7.30 p.m. noise of quarrel coming from their house attracted the neighbours Swaran Singh (PW 3), Nachhattar Singh (PW 4), Pritpal Singh (PW 9). According to the version given in the First Information Report which was lodged by Swaran Singh (PW 3), Ramesh Kumar was working as a compounder in a private hospital in Model Town. Attracted by the noise coming from the house of the deceased, he reached there and saw Ramesh Kumar accused grappling with his father, the deceased. The accused was telling the deceased that he should pay him more pocket money instead of Rs. 50/. The deceased, however, refused to increase the amount. The accused, who was holding some sharpedged weapon like a knife, dealt a below the left arm pit of the deceased, as a result of which he started bleeding. Nachhattar Singh and Pritpal Singh were also attracted to the place of occurrence and they saw the occurrence. Parkash Chand died at the spot. Leaving Nachhattar Singh and Pritpal Singh to guard the spot, Swaran Singh proceeded and made a statement, which was recorded by ASI Madan Lal, Incharge of Police Post Shimlapuri, who was on patrol duty near Barota Mohalla. The statement was recorded at 12.05 a.m. on the nigh between 23/24th May, 1989, and the present case was registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, at 12.35 a.m. Copy of the special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at 8.30 a.m. After registering the case, ASI Madan Lal (PW 11) came to the spot, reaching there at 12.30 a.m. He found the dead body of the Parkash Chand lying in his house being guarded by Nachhattar Singh and Pritpal Singh PWs. Electic light was on in the room as well as outside. He inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report. He then recovered bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence. Some of the stones and bricks lying nearby had received blood stains, which were also seized. He recorded the statements of Nachhattar Singh and Pritpal Singh and also prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. On May 30, 1989, the accused was produced before the Investigating Officer. he was interrogated. He made a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof he got recovered Chhuri Exhibit P 1, which was duly sealed.

At the trial, the prosecution depended on the ocular testimony of Swaran Singh (PW 3), Nachhattar Singh (PW 4) and Pritpal Singh (PW 9). Swaran Singh Nachhattar Singh did not fully support the prosecution. They were declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor. Pritpal Singh, however, fully supported the prosecution version set out above. In the crossexamination directed against Pritpal Singh, it was not disputed that he was a close neighbour of the deceased and no suggestions regarding any enmity against the accused was made by him. The statements of Swaran Singh (PW 3) and Nachhattar Singh (PW 4), even though they were declared hostile, lend corroboration to the evidence of Pritpal Singh (PW 9) in that they also admitted that they were attracted to the place of occurrence i.e. house of the deceased on hearing his alarm. They saw the deceased and the accused grappling with each other. They did not know as to in what circumstances the injury was received by the deceased. It will, therefore, be seen that they lend corroboration to a number of material facts relating to the prosecution case.

Dr. A.S. Sahni (PW 6) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Parkash Chand and he noted the following injury on his person :

"An incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm x going deep on the front and middle of left side of chest, 12 cms below the nipple, with corresponding cut on the Banian.

On exploration, the wound was found going upwards after bisecting through intercostal space repturing the pericordium and left auricle. The left pleura was reptured and contained blood. Death,in his opinion, was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injury to the heart, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury was antemortem and was possible with Chhuri Exhibit P 1.

The medical evidence led in the case fully corroborated the version given by Pritpal Singh (PW 9). The accused is none other than son of the deceased. The case against the petitioner is thus fully proved.

The question remains as to what offence is disclosed by the above facts. There was no background of any enmity. The deceased and the accused were father and son. Small disputes over matters of this type do arise in everday life. We, are therefore, satisfied that the dispute took place that unfortunate day was sudden and the case clearly falls under Exception 4 to Secitn 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence disclosed is culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable under Section 304. Having regard to the fact the part of the body selected for inflicting the injury was chest the requisite intention can be attributed to the accused, which would bring his case under Sectin 304 PartI. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused is altered from Section 302 to Section 304, Part1 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of life imprisonment the sentence is altered to one of 10 years, regorous, imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.