IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.438-DB of 1998 Date of decision: 14.01.2008 Gurdip Singh. -----Appellant. Vs. State of Punjab. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. The appellant questions his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, for which, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. Case of the prosecution is that deceased Kulwant Kaur wife of the appellant had delivered a child 20 days prior to the occurrence and she was at her parents’ house. On 29.7.1997, the appellant also came to his in-laws’ house and was staying with the deceased. On 31.7.1997 at 1.30 P.M., in the sight of Criminal Appeal No.438-DB of 1998 her brother Prem Singh, PW-2, the appellant assaulted the deceased and gave three kahi blows on her neck, resulting in her death. Tara Singh (PW-3) father of the deceased was also present in the house. Prem Singh proceeded to inform the police and met ASI Gurmit Singh (PW-4) on the turning of Village Bhindi Saidan who recorded his statement (Ex.PE), which led to registration of formal FIR. ASI Gurmit Singh went to the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also collected bloodstained earth and other items and arrested the accused alongwith the weapon. Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem examination on 1.8.1997 at 10.30 A.M. and found following injuries:- “1. An oblique incised wound 6 x 4 cms. with clotted blood, muscle deep was present on the left lateral aspect of the neck, 4 cms. below the ear. 2. An oblique incised wound 8 x 5 cms. with clotted blood was present on the left lateral aspect of neck and on the back and left side of the neck. The underlying soft tissue structures, blood vessels and cervical vertebrae No.3 and spinal cord were cut through and through. Clotted blood was present at the site, 3 cms. below injury No.1. 3. An oblique incised wound 5 x 2 cms. with clotted blood and underlying parietal bone cut through and through was present on the right side of the head. 4. An obrated bruise 5 x 4 cms. was present on the right maler eminence of the cheek.” 2 Criminal Appeal No.438-DB of 1998 The cause of death was injury No.2, which had resulted in severance of spinal cord which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was instantaneous. After investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. The prosecution examined Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-2), Tara Singh (PW-3) and ASI Gurmit Singh (PW-4). The accused denied the prosecution allegations. After considering the evidence on record the trial held the case of the prosecution to be fully established beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellant. Summary of observations of the trial Court is as under:- (i) Prem Singh (PW-2) and Tara Singh (PW-3) were natural eyewitnesses as the occurrence took place in their house and truthfulness of their testimony was beyond doubt. They had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Non-examination of Kirpal Singh, Sarpanch did not affect the case of the prosecution particularly when he was stated to be ill; (ii) Version of the eyewitnesses could not be rejected on the ground that the accused was not caused any injuries as a 3 Criminal Appeal No.438-DB of 1998 natural reaction of the witnesses when accused killed the deceased. It was observed that in absence of visible injuries, it could not be assumed that no reaction was shown and in any case, reaction could differ from man to man; (iii) In view of direct evidence, absence of clear motive was not important. FIR was recorded promptly at 3.30 P.M. and a copy of the special report reached the Magistrate at 6 P.M. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. Death of the deceased Kulwant Kaur, on account of homicidal injuries, is not disputed. There is no major discrepancy in the evidence. There is no reason not to believe PW-2 Prem Singh and PW-3 Tara Singh, whose presence in the house was natural and who had no axe to grind against the accused. They would be the last persons to substitute the appellant for the real accused. FIR was promptly recorded. The occurrence took place in broad day light. Nothing significant could be elicited in the cross-examination. The accused was apprehended on the spot. The place of occurrence remains undisputed. Bloodstained kahi was recovered from the accused. The accused did not give any explanation whatsoever. Relationship of the witnesses to the deceased does not in any manner affect their credibility particularly when they are also related to the accused. The witnesses may not react in any fixed 4 Criminal Appeal No.438-DB of 1998 manner. They cannot be disbelieved only because they did not or could not rescue the victim or did not show reaction against the accused. Absence or inadequacy of motive is not of much significance when there is direct evidence. A heinous crime may be committed for slight motive. Motive is a psychological phenomenon and sometimes it may not be possible to know the motive. Only other contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that there being no intention to cause death, the offence would fall under Section 304 IPC. We do not find any justification for this submission. The injury has been caused with a sharp-edged weapon on the neck causing instant death. The accused has totally denied having caused any injury. Intention to cause death or such bodily injury which was sufficient to cause death could be clearly inferred. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya AIR 1977 SC 45, Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874, Anda v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 148 and State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh AIR 2004 SC 1264. For the above reasons, we do not find any reason whatsoever for interference with the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE 5 Criminal Appeal No.438-DB of 1998 January 14, 2008 ( S. D. ANAND ) ashwani JUDGE 6