Sada Nand vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

Sada Nand, son of Sita Ram aged 26 ages, a classIV Railway Employee, resident of village Mandi Dabwali, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dated September 16 1982, as per which the appellant was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

The prosecution version as narrated by Natha Singh (PWE 7), brother of Sarwan Singh deceased is to the effect that on December 19, 1981 at about 9/10 p.w., the witness along with his brother Sarwan was sitting in a room of their house and talking about family affairs. The appellant who is the son inlaw of Sarwan Singh came there and asked the latter to bring some liquor to celebrate the birth of his male child, which event had taken place ten days earlier. Sarwan Sigh told him that it was not possible to arrange for liquor at that hour of the night and that he may take his meals. The appellant started abusing Sarwan Singh. Natha Singh and Sarwan Singh asked the appellant not to behave in that manner. The appellant then picked up a balli lying nearby and hit the same on the head of Sarwan Singh. In this process, he gave four or five blows as a result of which Sarwan Singh fell down and became unconscious. On the alarm of Natha Singh PW, the appellant threw the balli at the spot and ran away from there. The incident was narrated to Brij Lal son of the deceased and some neigbours, who collected there. The injured was removed to the Primary Health Centre, Lambi in a tractortrolley. The Doctor at Lambi referred the case to Civil Hospital, Malout where Sarwan Singh was taken and got admitted. On receipt of a Ruqa sent to Police Station Malout which was forwarded to Police Station Lambi Assistant SubInspector Santokh Singh reached Civil Hospital, Malout. The Doctor in the hospital opined that the injured was unconscious and was not fit to make a statement. The investigating Officer then recorded the statement of Natha Singh PW Exhibit PR, on the basis of which formal First Information Report Exhibit PR/1 was registered at the Police Station.

Assistant Sub Inspector Santokh Singh went to the place of occurrence and carried out the formalities of investigation including the taking into possession of the balli Exhibit P 1. He tried to look for the appellant who was not traceable. The appellant was ultimately arrested on January 4, 1982.

Sarwan Singh died in the hospital on December 30, 1981. The autopsy on his dead body was conducted by Dr. Tej Ram Garg (PW 4) who noticed the following injuries on the same;

Contusion on right side of forehead, upper eyelid and right temporal region 15 cm X 12 cm.

Healed wound 1/2 X 1/2 cm on lateral aspect of left upper eye lid.

Contusion on left fronttemporal region involving left upper eye lid also.

Healed wound 2 cm X 1/4 cm on right zygotic process.

On dissection of the scalp and skull large haematoma was present underneath. The frontal bone on the left side was fractured through and through. In the opinion of the medical witness, death was due to the injuries leading to the fracture of the underlying bones and extradural and subdural haematoma. The injuries were antemortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

As a result of his trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed above.

The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the prosecution case was sought to be sustained by the solitary testimony of Natha Singh (PW 7) upon whom reliance should not be placed. After going through the evidence on the record with the aid of the learned counsel and hearing him, we find that the contention is without substance Natha Singh is the real brother of the deceased and his presence at the spot at the relevant time is quite natural. A suggestion was put to him by way of defence that the witness along with Sarwan Singh deceased and Zora Singh sister''s husband of the witness as also the appellant were taking liquor to celebrate the birth of son of the appellant and that a dispute occurred regarding the engagement of one Chhinder Kaur of their family as a result of which the witness had caused injuries to his brother with a balli. This suggestion was refuted by the witness. Even otherwise the same is a cock and bull story without any basis of probability. In spite of his crossexamination, no material favourable to the appellant could be elicited from Natha Singh PW. In the circumstances, the trial Court was quite justified in placing implicit reliance upon his testimony and convicting the appellant on the basis of the said evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that there was some delay in lodging of the First Information Report. The delay is indeed there but in case like the present where there is a single accused who is attributed with having caused injury to his own fatherinlaw, there is hardly any occasion false implication or substitution in place of the real assailant. They delay in the lodging of the report stands explained from the very circumstances that Natha Singh brother of the deceased was the only eyewitness of the occurrence, who had got busy makings arrangements to take the injured person first to Primary Health Centre, Lambi in a tractortrolley and from there to Civil Hospital. Malout, in an attempt to save his life. In view of the delay, the testimony of Natha Singh has been scrutinised with greater care and found the same free from the taint of discrepancies or contradictions.

The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does required consideration. The contention is that there was no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased who was the former''s fatherinlaw and that the incident took place on the spur of the moment. In such a situation, the appellant could not be attributed with the intention to murder the deceased but only to inflict such injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In his circumstances, the submission is that the offence committed by the appellant falls under section 304, Part I Indian Penal Code. We were inclined to agree with the learned counsel on this point. Accordingly the appellant stands convicted under Section 304 Part I. Indian Penal Code, on which count we sentence him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal stands partly accepted to the extent indicated above.