Sant Parkash Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) for quashing the charges framed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on December 4, 1992 and setting aside the order dated September 14, 1993 passed by him.

Brief facts of the case are that on June 20, 1991 at about 7.50 p.m. A.S.I. Parkash Singh of Police Station Division No. 4 Jalandhar, along with some other police officials was present near the Punjab National Bank Chowk, Jalandhar. Ranjit Kaur wife of Bhupinder Singh, Jat, resident of House No. 160/4, Central Town, Jalandhar, along with her son Neetiraj Singh met ASI Parkash Singh and made the following statement :

"I am resident of Central Town, Jalandhar in a house taken on rent from Charanjit Singh alongwith my children. On 18.6.1991, my mother Pritam Kaur had come to see me from Amritsar. I am ill for some time. Today my motherinlaw Dalbir Kaur, resident of New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, had come to my house to see me. I was to go to Amritsar for getting myself examined from a Doctor. I and my husband Bhupinder Singh left for Amritsar at 11.30 a.m. leaving Dalbir Kaur my motherinlaw and my son Neetiraj Singh and mother Pritam Kaur at my house. I and my husband reached the house of my parents in Mohalla Bagh Akalian and my father S. Fauja Singh told us that he had received a telephonic message from Jalandhar that my mother Pritam Kaur had expired. I, my brother S. Onkar Singh and Bhupinder Singh my husband reached Jalandhar on learning about the death of my mother and saw my mother dead. My motherinlaw Dalbir Kaur wife of Darshan Singh Shergil, resident of House No. 50, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar told me that today at about 1.00 p.m. someone pressed the call bell at the house, whereupon Neetiraj Singh opened the door. She and Pritam Kaur went near the outer door and found her son Sant Parkash Singh, who is residing in Mohalla Kaimpura, Kapurthala, with his wife Sushma Bala, motherinlaw Nachhattar Kaur w/o Durga Dutt, his sisterinlaw Santosh alias Neeti and Kusum Bala daughters of Durga Dutt and Meedi son of Randhir Singh Shergil, resident of Avtar Nagar, Jalandhar, standing in front of the door in the street. All of them entered the house. Nachhattar Kaur declared that they would be taught a lesson for slapping Kusum. Nachhattar Kaur caught Pritam Kaur from her neck. Sant Parkash Singh, Meedi, Sushma Bala, Neeti and Kusum Bala gave fist blows to my mother Pritam Kaur, Dalbir Kaur and Neeti Raj Singh attempted to rescue Pritam Kaur but she fell on the ground and became unconscious and died. Dalbir Kaur and Neetiraj Singh raised alarm ''Maar Ditta, Maar Ditta''. All the accused left in the Maruti van, in which they had come, which was parked outside. Meedi was driving the vehicle. While attempting to rescue, Dalbir Kaur also suffered minor injuries at the hands of Sant Parkash Singh etc. The motive is that one month earlier, my husband Bhupinder Singh gave Rs. 5,000/ to Sant Parkash Singh for purchase of wheat for Sh. Partap Singh Sehgal, Storekeeper of Gurdwara Central Town, Jalandhar. Sant Parkash Singh did not send the wheat. My motherinlaw Dalbir Kaur approached him at Kapurthala and asked Sant Parkash Singh to send the wheat to Bhupinder Singh as the money was paid by the third party. Yesterday, on 19.6.1991, my son Neetiraj Singh, husband Bhupinder Singh and my mother Pritam Kaur were present in the house, when at about 2.00 p.m. Kusum Bala, sisterinlaw of Sant Parkash Singh brought ten bags of wheat in a cart. I asked her as to why she not brought the wheat for the whole amount and had brought only ten bags wheat and told her to take back the bags and send Sant Parkash Singh. I exchanged hot words with her and also slapped her. She returned with the wheat and while leaving she threatened me that I would be taught a lesson for slapping her. Sant Parkash Singh, Nachhattar Kaur, Sushma Bala, Kusum Bala, Santosh alias Neeti, Meedi, abovesaid, in furtherance of their common intention have assaulted my mother, resulting in her death. Leaving my brother Onkar Singh, husband Bhupinder Singh near the dead body, I alongwith Neetiraj Singh my son was proceeding to the Police Station to lodge the report and you had met me and I have made the statement."

Notice of this petition was given to the State. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City I), Jalandhar, has been filed. It has been stated in para 2 of the reply that the dead body of Pritam Kaur was sent to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, for postmortem examination; that Dr. Ashok conducted the postmortem and viscera was despatched to Chemical Examiner at Patiala and that the death of Pritam Kaur was caused by strangulation as per the statement of the eyewitness recorded under Section 161 of the Code at the spot. It has been further stated in para 8 of the reply that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners which connects them with the offence punishable under Section 304, Indian Penal Code.

Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that according to the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Pritam Kaur, her death was due to natural causes and, therefore, no offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioners. He has further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law in framing a charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners and has also erred in holding that Pritam Kaur died because of shock by facing a violent attack on her, some excitement, mental tension and strenuous physical work. In the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City I) the case of the prosecution is that Pritam Kaur had died due to strangulation. This aspect of the prosecution case that Pritam Kaur had died due to strangulation is not supported by the evidence of the doctor, who had conducted postmortem examination on her dead body.

It has been held by this Court in Hukum Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 644, that a Judge is not merely a Post Office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution, but he has to exercise his Judicial mind to the facts of case (sic) for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In the present case, the doctor, who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Pritam Kaur, has opined that the death of Pritam Kaur was due to natural causes. The doctor has not given any opinion to the effect that Pritam Kaur had died due to strangulation.

In view of the above discussion, I hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has erred in framing the charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the orders dated December 4, 1992 and September 14, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside.