Sat Pal vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Sat Pal appellant alongwith his coaccused Parvesh Kumar was brought to trial for the murder of Ashok Kumar deceased before the Court of Sessions at Jalandhar. The learned Session Judge, Jalandhar by his judgment dated November 12, 1986, acquitted Parvesh Kumar accused but held the appellant guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He appeals.

The prosecution case in brief is that on May 26, 1986 at about 8 PM, Ashok Kumar deceased was watching TV at his house when somebody called him from outside. He opened the door and met Sat Pal and Parvesh Kumar accused. While they were talking to each other, they proceeded toward the chowk and were present near the shop of Raj Kumar, a karyana merchant. It is alleged that the electric light outside the nearby shop of Raj Kumar was on and there was sufficient light near the place of occurrence. At that time Sat Pal accused complained to Ashok Kumar deceased as to why he had written a letter to his sister. This fact was, however, denied by Ashok Kumar. Immediately thereafter, Parvesh Kumar accused caught hold of Ashok Kumar deceased by his neck and Sat Pal accused took out a knife from his dub and plunged it in the left flank of Ashok Kumar. On hearing the noise raised by Ashok Kumar, Behari Lal and Girdhari Lal PWs were attracted to the spot and they also witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, both the accused bolted away from the spot alongwith the knife. Immediately after the occurrence, Paras Ram removed Ashok Kumar injured to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where Dr. jasbir Singh PW 1 found the following injury on his person :

"A stab incised wound 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. on the lateral aspect of lower half and the chest on left side."

On receipt of intimation from the doctor, Head Constables Joginder Singh went to the said hospital to record the statement of the injured, Dr. Dial opined that Ashok Kumar was fit to make a statement. Thereafter the Head Constable recorded the dying declaration of Ashok Kumar which was concluded at 8.10 a.m. and on its basis formal FIR under Section 324, Indian Penal Code was subsequently recorded at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar at 8.35 a.m. on 27.5.1986. After the death of Ashok Kumar at 2.00 p.m. on 28.5.1986 in the said hospital, the offence was converted into one under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Head Constable went to the spot and prepared its visual plan. He also lifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. Both the accused were arrested on the day following the occurrence. On interrogation by the Investigating Officer, Sat Pal accused suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of knife from the specified place of concealment. Darshan Singh Assistant Sub Inspector held inquest and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed.

Girdhari Lal PW 6 furnished the ocular account of the event. Kalu Ram PW 7 deposed to the fact that both the accused came to him on 27.5.1986 and confessed their guilt of having murdered Ashok Kumar with a knife. Head Constable Joginder Singh PW 9 recorded the dying declaration Ex. PF/1 of Ashok Kumar after obtaining the opinion of the doctor. Darshan Singh Assistant Sub Inspector PW 8 was the Investigating Officer. The remaining evidence was of formal nature. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. Roshan Lal and Raj Kumar Qanungo were examined in defence.

The hallmark of the prosecution case here is the unimpeachable nature of the ocular account. There is hardly anything in dispute that the occurrence took place in the chowk near the shop of Raj Kumar, a Karyana merchant, Girdhari Lal PW 6 is entirely a natural witness who was present at the spot when the altercation took place between the appellant and Ashok Kumar deceased. The significant thing, however, is that not a hint of any animus or interestedness against the appellant could even be suggested to the said eyewitness. For the detailed reasons recorded by the trial Court, which we affirm, we unhesitatingly accept the ocular account in the present case. The medical evidence in the present case is entirely consistent with the ocular account. The injury found on the body of the deceased is entirely corroborative of an attack with a knife and the seat of the injury also is in line with that deposed to by the prosecution witness. The First Information Report in the case is patently prompt in the circumstances. Immediately on receipt of intimation from the doctor. Head Constable, Joginder Singh went to the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor that Ashok Kumar deceased was fit to make a statement, the Head Constable recorded his statement Ex. PF, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar at 8.35 a.m. i.e. within about half an hour of the incident. There are other reassuring circumstances regarding the guilt of the appellant. He had apparently absconded and was unavailable to the police on the day of the incident. Soon after his apprehension, he led to the recovery of knife Ex. P2, which is again a corroborative factor in the case.

Mr. P.S. Mann, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant can at best be said to have committed an offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code. There appears to be substance in this contention. It emerges from the record that at the alleged time of occurrence, the appellant complained to Ashok Kumar deceased that why he had written a letter to his (appellant''s) sister and when this fact was denied by the deceased the appellant plunged his knife in his left flank which ultimately proved fatal. It appears that there was some sudden altercation between the parties and in all probability hot words were exchanged. There is no evidence that the appellant took any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. He gave a single knife blow on the left flank of the deceased. He did not go on assaulting the deceased even though he slumped on the ground. We are clearly of the opinion that the offence committed by the appellant will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he is punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

In the result, the conviction of Sat Pal under Section 302, Indian Penal Code is set aside and he is convicted under Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine, if realised, whole of it shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased.

The appeal is allowed to the extent noted above.