IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 Date of Decision: 02.02.2009 Harvinder Singh @ Shinda Appellant Versus The State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG Punjab for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. It was allegation against the appellant that he had committed murder of his wife, by throwing acid upon her and had also caused injuries to other family members. He was made to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 IPC. Vide the impugned judgment, he was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and vide impugned order, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause. For commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC, he was ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 2 Prosecution’s case, as noticed by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:- “The story of the prosecution in brief is that complainant Bahadur Singh father of deceased Satinder Kaur got recorded his statement that he is a truck driver having five children. His eldest daughter Satinder Kaur is married to accused Harvinder Singh son of Teja Singh, resident of Paprala. Harvinder Singh is also working as driver on a truck. Satinder Kaur his daughter alongwith her two children Navjot Singh aged 5 years and Onkar Singh aged 2 years has been residing in Village Kotla Nihang with him. The said house is in the name of Satinder Kaur. His daughter Rajwinder Kaur is married to Amarjit Singh, resident of Kakron. His youngest daughter Rupinder Kaur is married to Kulwinder Singh. His son Sukhbir Singh aged 14 years and daughter Manjit Kaur aged 7/8 years have been residing with him in village Kotla Nihang. Rupinder Kaur his daughter had come to meet him for the last 4 days. On 19.4.2002 at about 9 P.M. his son-in-law Harvinder Singh came back after visting Maharashtra on his truck. He has a plastic can one litre in his hand. He asked his daughter Satinder Kaur to give money for purchase of liquor. Satinder Kaur objected to the demand made by Harvinder Singh by saying that he has been behaving the same every day and she would not give the money. Harvinder Singh got angry. He opened the lid of the can and threw liquid in the can which was in the form of Acid Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 3 upon Satinder Kaur. Satinder Kaur raised hue and cry. All othyer members present in the house came forward to help her. Harvinder Singh threw liquid on them. Some part of that liquid had also fallen on him, ,his daughter Rupinder Kaur, son Sukhbir Singh and grand son Onkar Singh. They started raising hue and cry and Harvinder Singh left the spot after throwing the can on the place of occurrence. He shifted his children Satinder Kaur, Rupinder Kaur and Sukhveer Singh and grand son Onkar Singh to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Rupidner Kaur, Sukhveer Singh and Onkar Singh were discharged after first aid. Satinder Kaur was referred to P.G.I. keeping in view her serious condition.” ASI Manjit Singh, after recording statement of Bahadur Singh (PW8), sent an intimation to the police station, upon receipt of which, formal FIR (Ex.PK/2) was registered against the appellant on 20.4.2002 at 3.10 AM. It is necessary to mention here that the statement of Bahadur Singh, which formed basis of above said FIR, was recorded in Civil Hospital at Ropar at 1.30 AM on 20.4.2002. It has also come on record that the investigating officer, ASI Manjit Singh, thereafter, went to PGI, Chandigarh, after getting opinion of the doctor, regarding fitness of Satinder Kaur, deceased, he recorded her statement (Ex.PEE) on 20.4.2002. Initially, FIR was recorded under Section 307 IPC. When above said Satinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries on 24.4.2002, offence under Section 302 IPC was added in the FIR. In the meantime, investigating officer went to the place of occurrence, got prepared site plan (Ex.PU) of that place and also took into his possession one plastic Can, two Gaddas, one Chadder double bed, one towel, Salwar, Kamiz Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 4 and Chuni of Satinder Kaur, two pillows, one Kurta Pajama of Bahadur Singh all stained with acid, against recovery memos Ex.PM and Ex.PN. After death, he also prepared inquest report regarding dead body of Satinder Kaur and sent it for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr.Chander Parkash (PW5), who made the following observations in his report, prepared on 24.4.2002:- “Superficial to deep foul smelling septic corrosive burn injury present all over the body except scalp forehead, both eyes, right half of face, right half of front of neck, chest and abdomen (only some patched of corrosive burn injury present over front of middle 1/3rd of right side of abdomen), right half of perininal region, both glutial region (only some patches of corrosive burn injury present over posterior lateral aspect of left glutial region), right lower limb (except some patches of corrosive burn injury present over front of lower 1/3rd of thigh, front of knee and frontal aspect of upper 1/3rd of right leg) and both sole and feet and some patches of healthy skin present over back of lower 1/3rd of left thigh. Base of the burnt area having greenish yellowish pus points at places. Total 65% septic corrosive burn injury.” As per opinion of above said witness, cause of death was shock due to septicemia as a result of 65% septic corrosive burn injuries, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The injury was found ante mortem in nature. Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 5 It is necessary to mention here that initially, after assault by the appellant, deceased and other injured were medico legally examined by Dr.B.H.P. Singh (PW15). He has referred Satinder Kaur to PGI at Chandigarh. Injuries on the person of others were found to be simple. In PGI at Chandigarh, deceased, Rupinder Kaur- her sister and Onkar Singh- her son, were examined by Dr.Puneet Tuli (PW14), who found 65% acid burns on the body of the deceased, 3% acid burns on the body of Rupinder Kaur – her sister and 6% acid burns on the body of Onkar Singh - son of the deceased. It is coming out from the records that ASI Manjit Singh (PW11) went to the PGI at Chandigarh, got opinion of the doctor regarding health/ fitness of the deceased and then recorded her statement on 20.4.2002. She repeated the story, given earlier by her father Bahadur Singh (PW8). She stated that the appellant had thrown some liquid (looking like acid) upon her and other family members. It is also on record that the appellant was arrested on 29.4.2002 and he was medico legally examined by Dr.Anju, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ropar on the above said date. She found 8 healed injuries on his person. All were simple in nature. This witness further stated that duration of the injuries was about 10 days. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The appellant was charge sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 15 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he denied, claimed innocence and Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 6 false implication. He has virtually admitted the occurrence, however, he disputed the manner in which the incident had happened. He tried to show it as an accident. He led no evidence in defence. On analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence with which he was charged, accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the trial Court was not justified in convicting and awarding sentence to the appellant. By making reference to the statement made by Dr.Anju (PW1), she argued that the prosecution had made an attempt to suppress genesis of the occurrence. He further tried to show us that there existed vital discrepancies in the depositions made by Bahadur Singh (PW8), Rupinder Kaur (PW9) and Sukhbir Singh (PW10), the alleged eye witnesses. By taking us through statements made by above said witnesses, counsel argued that they were contradicting each other on vital issues. She further argued that the trial Court has gone wrong in treating statement of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as a dying declaration. She argued that when above said statement was recorded, no doctor was present and further no effort was made to get her statement recorded through a Magistrate. She prayed that appeal be allowed, judgment and order under challenge be set aside. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the respondent-State. She, by making reference to the statement made by the appellant –accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and suggestions given to the eye witnesses, argued that the occurrence has virtually been admitted by the appellant. He has only disputed the manner in which events had taken place. Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 7 She stated that the appellant has failed to show that the deceased and other family members got acid injuries in an accident. Why and for what purpose, the appellant had brought acid to his house, the accused has failed to explain the same. Instead of getting his wife, son and other family members admitted in the hospital, appellant’s running away from the spot, indicates that he was the culprit. She further supported finding of the trial Court in treating statement of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as a dying declaration. To support above said finding, she has placed reliance upon ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Munnu Raja and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2199. She prayed that appeal, having no substance, be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Occurrence is virtually admitted on record, manner of its happening is only in dispute. The appellant has made an attempt to show it as a case of accident, whereas prosecution contended to the contrary. First version of the occurrence was given by Bahadur Singh (PW8), at whose instance, FIR (Ex.PK/2) was recorded against the appellant. This witness, Rupinder Kaur (PW9) and Sukhbir Singh (PW10) have stated that the accused was holding a plastic Can in his hands, on reaching his house, he demanded money from his deceased wife to purchase liquor and on refusal, he threw liquid, looking acid, upon her. When others came to her rescue, he threw acid upon them also. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had run away from the spot after the above said occurrence. He made no attempt to Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 8 get his family members admitted in the hospital. He was arrested on 29.4.2002. Above said facts indicate towards his guilty mind. Contention of counsel for the appellant, that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the person of the appellant, causes doubt with regard to its story, will not cut much ice in this case. Dr.Anju (PW1) who had medically examined the appellant on 29.4.2002, has found 8 simple injuries on his person. All the injuries were healed and were about 10 days old. It is a case where occurrence is admitted, however, its mode and manner is in dispute. It is case of the prosecution that the appellant had poured acid on his deceased wife and then upon family members. In that process, when deceased was trying to save herself, some amount of acid might have spilled over the appellant-accused. In view of facts of this case, no benefit can be given to the appellant in that regard. The trial Court has rightly held that it was not a case of accident. It has come in the evidence that the shelves were not available in the room, where a plastic Can, containing acid, can be placed. Rather it has come on record that in the cup-boards, there were no shelves. In the face of stamped eye witnesses, no benefit of the technicalities can be given to the appellant, who has committed a heinous crime of murdering his wife. Dr.Chander Parkash has specifically stated that cause of death was the result of burns, caused by acid, to the deceased. It is on record that the investigating officer on 20.4.2002 had recorded statement of the deceased in PGI at Chandigarh. Before recording her statement, he had got a certificate from the doctor concerned that he was in a fit state of mind. The investigating officer has specifically stated that at that time, the injured was Criminal Appeal No.965-DB of 2006 9 not in imminent danger of death. She died on 29.4.2002. In view of ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munnu Raja’s case (supra), her statement can be treated as a dying declaration, which has rightly been done by the Court below. There is no explanation on record, as to why the appellant had brought acid to his house. Recording of the statements of the injured and thereafter FIR was prompt in this case which leaves no chance for any manipulation by the prosecution. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. However, it is ordered that sentences awarded to the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC shall run concurrently. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 02.02.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge