Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Rattan Singh, appellant herein has been held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries on the vital parts of the body of Amar Singh which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Vide separate order of the same date, i.e., April 1, 1995, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

Brief facts, as unfolded by Ishar Singh son of the deceased, while lodging the FIR, reveal that on the eventful day, the first informant, i.e., Ishar Singh, who was employed in Public Works Department, was going with his father Amar Singh and one Gurdev Singh son of Nanak Ram. They were going on foot for bringing Groundnut and Reories for the children to celebrate Lohri festival. It was about 6 or 6.15 P.M. when they reached on the road near the cremation ground of village Devigarh, appellant was seen coming from the front side carrying a naked Kirpan in his right hand. He usually remained moving at the bus stand, Devigarh earlier also. On seeing him, his father Amar Singh asked, "Rattan Singh, what is the matter today, you are roaming with a naked Kirpan. Today is the festival." The moment father of first informant talked to the appellant, the latter gave a Kirpan blow towards the head of his father saying that he was going to celebrate his Lohri. The Kirpan blow hit his father on the left side of ear and neck. His father fell down on the ground with his face downwards. He and Gurdev Singh told the appellant that he had committed a wrong and he should not cause any more injuries. In the meantime, when they were so saying, appellant gave another blow on the back of left side of his father. The first informant and Gurdev Singh did not step forward on seeing the naked Kirpan in the hand of the appellant. They, however, raised an alarm and people gathered there. On seeing the gathering, appellant together with Kirpan fled away towards village Rurki. They started taking care of Amar Singh, who was bleeding profusely. The injured was taken in a car to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala along with Sukhpal son of Chamela Ram, Bachna Ram son of Panjaba Ram and the first informant. They got the injured admitted there. After admitting his father in the hospital, when first informant was coming back to his village, A.S.I. Jagroop Singh, PW6, met him on the Bus Stand, Devigarh, where his statement was recorded. Amar Singh succumbed to his injuries at about midnight on January 13, 1994.

Dr. O.P. Aggarwal, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Patiala, who appeared as PW2 conducted post mortem on the dead body of Amar Singh on January 14, 1994 at 1.30 P.M and found following injuries on his dead body :

"1. An incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm on upper of left side of the neck over the left ear. Underneath blood vessels and skull was cut. Brain was damaged, Clotted blood was present in the skull cavity.

An abrasion 7 cm x 3 cm on the back of left shoulder. The injury was superficial in nature."

Stomach was empty. Small and large intestine were healthy. Liver, spleen and kidneys were healthy. Bladder was also healthy. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the above injuries which were antemortem in nature and injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was 67 hours and between death and post mortem within 1224 hours.

Eye witness account was provided by Ishar Singh, who was examined as PW3 and Gurdev Singh, an independent witness, who was examined as PW4. Both these witnesses have supported the prosecution version and nothing meaningful at all could be brought out from their crossexamination. Chhotta Singh, who was examined as PW5, stated that on January 17, 1994 at about 3 P.M. he was standing at the bus stand of Devigarh when police party headed by A.S.I. Jagroop Singh came from the side of police station Julkan. Appellant Rattan Singh was in custody of the police. He was associated in the police party by ASI Jagroop Singh. Thereafter the appellant led the police party including himself on the pavement of the Sua where some bushes were present and he got recovered a Kirpan, Ex.P1 which was bloodstained. The A.S.I. made a sealed parcel of the Kirpan and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG which was attested by him. A.S.I. Jagroop Singh appeared as PW6 and detailed the steps that he had taken while investigating the case.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant only stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated at the instance of Ishar Singh, Chhotta Singh and Gurdev Singh, who were interested witnesses. He was not responsible for the murder and some other person had committed the offence. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

We have heard Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as also Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. H.B. Singh, Advocate and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case.

Mr. Ghai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that PW3 Ishar Singh, son of the deceased, and PW4 Gurdev Singh, had actually not witnessed the occurrence and it is only after the dead body of Amar Singh was found somewhere in the early hours on January 14, 1994, that the matter was brought to the notice of the police and appellant was falsely connected with the crime. The second and last contention of learned defence counsel is that even if the eye witness account, as given by the PWs 3 and 4, is believed, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence would not go beyond 304 Part I, I.P.C. While elaborating his first contention, as noted above, learned defence counsel states that there is no evidence as to when injured Amar Singh was taken to the hospital at Patiala. No doubt, Ishar Singh, son of the deceased, stated that he had taken his father to the hospital and reached Patiala at about 7.30 P.M. on January 13, 1994, no other evidence was brought on record. If Amar Singh was admitted in the hospital at 7.30 P.M. there ought to have been records to that effect maintained by the hospital authorities. Amar Singh had not died immediately or shortly after he was admitted in the hospital but died somewhere in the midnight. He must have been examined on his admission in the hospital and yet no medicolegal report has been produced on records. Learned counsel contends that documentary evidence has been deliberately withheld as production of the same would have falsified the prosecution version. There is nothing on record from where it could also be made out as to who brought the injured to the hospital. Learned counsel further contends that the information (Ruqa), Ex. PJ, that was sent to the police, has not been signed by any one and no time is recorded thereon as to when the same was sent. Learned defence counsel further contends that, as per the prosecution version, the deceased was not living with his son PW3 Ishar Singh and the father and son had proceeded separately from their houses and it was a chance that at the time of occurrence they were together. In fact, there was no question of their being together at the time of occurrence, living separately and not proceeding from the same house to do shopping for the Lohri festival. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by learned counsel, noted above, but find no substance therein. Smt. Gurbachan Kaur, Librarian, Central Registration Office, Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, appeared as PW1. She produced bed head ticket. Ex.PQ, of Amar Singh who was admitted in the hospital on January 13, 1994 and died on January 14, 1994 at 12.55 A.M. The patient was admitted under Central Registration No. 1238. She further stated that patient was brought in the hospital by Ishar Singh. Bed head ticket, Ex.PQ, of Amar Singh, is available on records of the case and it does reveal that Amar Singh was admitted in the hospital at the time as given by the PW3 Ishar Singh. Not only that, it is clear from the deposition made by PW1 Smt. Gurbachan Kaur that Amar Singh was admitted in the hospital by none other than PW3 Ishar Singh. That apart, Dr. O.P. Aggarwal, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Amar Singh at 1.30 P.M on January 14, 1994 stated that probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was 67 hours and between death and post mortem within 1224 hours. As mentioned above, as per deposition made by PW1, Amar Singh died at about 12.55 AM on January 14, 1994 and the fact that the doctor stated that the time that elapsed between injuries and death was 67 hours, also fixes the time of admission of Amar Singh in the hospital at Patiala. The doctor further stated that stomach of the deceased was found to be empty. It may be recalled at this stage that as per the prosecution version, the occurrence had taken place at 6.15 P.M. on January 13, 1994 and if Amar Singh had taken his last meals somewhere around 12 or 1 P.M. on January 13, 1994, by the time he died, the food must have been completely digested. This fact also almost fixes the time of occurrence, admission of Amar Singh in the hospital and his death, as has been suggested by the prosecution. The first contention of learned defence counsel is, thus, repelled.

We find absolutely no substance in the second contention of the learned defence counsel as well because the doctor, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Amar Singh clearly stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the injuries which were antemortem in nature and injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There was no provocation, altercation, sudden fight immediately preceding the occurrence. True, no motive has been suggested to the appellant actuating him to commit the crime but when the eye witness account is found to be trustworthy, motive pales into insignificance. Even otherwise, the motive is normally embedded in the mind of the accused and it is not necessary that it must be known to all concerned. Learned defence counsel, has, however, relied upon a DB judgment of this Court in Birinder Ram v. State of UT, Chandigarh, 1997(3) CC Cases 140 to canvass that to invoke exception 4 to Section 300 four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the present case, it is being argued, that there was no premeditation, no motive and it ought to have been a sudden fight as, on the words suggested by Amar Singh to the appellant, no one could have been provoked to cause such injuries that might result in his death. This Court is of the firm view that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand at all. The facts of Birinder Ram''s case (supra) would reveal that many persons had occupied vacant land to build their huts between Ram Darbar colony and Air Force area. Ravinder Singh, Bhappi Karmokar and Vijay Gupta had occupied the land in the said new developing colony to build their huts. On the eventful day Ravinder Singh, Bhappi Karmokan who were friends of the first informant and he (first informant) had come to erect a wall for the construction of huts at their respective land. When they were levelling their pieces of land, Birinder Ram came to them and spoke that land was his and they told him that they had occupied that land a few days back and he should shift to some other place. The accused, however, remained adamant and grappled with Ravinder Singh and started hurling abuses to him. The first informant and Bhappi Karmokar made him understand and separated both of them. Accused fled away from there. He, however, again came there at about 8 P.M. while hurling abuses in the name of brotherinlaw and said that he would kill the one who dared to build a hut on his land. On reaching there the accused started grappling with Ravinder Singh and within no time in their presence, he picked up a Kassi lying at the spot and gave two blows on his head. The facts of the case, referred to above, clearly reveal that it was a case of sudden fight. The accused had picked up a Kassi lying at the spot and when he came there, he was admittedly empty handed. In the present case, Amar Singh had only talked to the appellant that it was a day of festival and as to why he was roaming with a naked Kirpan. These words do not suggest any kind of wordy duel nor the words were such that could have infuriated the appellant. There was no provocation whatsoever for the appellant that might actuate him to commit the crime. Before we part with this judgment, we would just like to hurriedly mention that the learned defence counsel, from the records of the case pointed out that at one stage the learned trial Judge had got the appellant examined from a doctor to find out as to whether he was insane and the doctors in their report had said that he was suffering from Parkinsons disease. Learned defence counsel stated that Parkinsons disease means that patient would have lucid fits of madness. This has been controverted by learned counsel representing the State, who has canvassed that Parkinsons disease only means trembling of limbs. As mentioned above, we would not like to take this matter any further as plea of insanity was not taken nor the learned counsel even before us has argued the case to claim defence of insanity.

For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal and, thus dismiss the same, upholding the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.