IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 DATE OF DECISION : 06.03.2009 Gurdev Ram alias Sukhdev Ram .... APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Appellant Gurdev Ram was tried by Sessions Judge, Patiala, on charge under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, for committing murder of Hari Ram and attempt to commit murder of Labh Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 14.6.2004, which is under appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two years under Section 302 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year under Section 307 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -2- 2. As per the prosecution version, on 30.3.2003 at about 6.00 P.M., accused Gurdev Ram, while sitting in the Bara near the house of Jagir Singh, gave some poisonous substance resembling liquor, first to Hari Ram and then to Labh Singh, who drank the same, in the presence of Satpal son of Joginder Singh. However, accused himself did not take that substance and after some time, he left the place of occurrence. After taking that poisonous substance, Hari Ram and Labh Singh went to their home, where their condition started deteriorating. Thereupon, they were taken to Rajindra Hospital in the night. 3. On 31.3.2003 at 2.35 A.M., on receipt of information from the Hospital regarding their admission, the police went to the Hospital, where both the victims were found unconscious and on the applications Ex.PL and Ex.PM, moved by SI Balkar Singh, the Doctor vide his endorsements Ex.PL/1 and Ex.PM/1 declared victims Hari Ram and Labh Singh, respectively, unfit to make statement. Therefore, statement (Ex.PB) of Karnail Singh, father of Hari Ram, who had taken his son to the Hospital and was present there, was recorded. He stated that on 30.3.2003 at about 6.00 P.M., while he was coming to his house after doing labour work and when he reached near the house of Jagir Singh, he saw that his son Hari Ram and nephew Labh Singh and son of his sister-in-law Sat Pal were sitting in the Bara. He saw that in his presence, accused gave poisonous substance resembling liquor in a glass, first to Hari Ram and then to Labh Singh. However, he himself did not take the same. Thereafter, all of them Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -3- went to their house and after some time, condition of his son started deteriorating, upon which he was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. In his statement, Karnail Singh further stated that earlier the accused had an altercation with Hari Ram and Labh Singh about the Bara. Having the said grudge, the accused gave poisonous substance in the liquor shape to Hari Ram and Labh Singh. On the basis of the said statement, formal FIR (Ex.PB/1) was registered under Section 307 IPC. On 31.3.2003 at 3.40 P.M., Hari Ram expired. Then, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. However, Labh Singh was saved and he was discharged from the Hospital on 9.4.2003. Dr. D.S. Bhullar (PW.7), who conducted the post- mortem of the deceased on 1.4.2003, on the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PG) dated 20.5.2003, gave his opinion (Ex.PF) on 23.5.2003 to the effect that the cause of death in this case was poisoning from organo phosphorus compound, a group of insecticides. 4. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. He was charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including PW.3 Karnail Singh (complainant), PW.4 Labh Singh (victim), PW.5 Dr. Navdeep Singh Brar, who treated victim Labh Singh, PW.6 Dr. Rajeev, who provided necessary treatment to Hari Ram, PW.7 Dr. B.S. Bullar, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Hari Ram, PW.8 Sat Pal (eye witness) and PW.12 SI Balkar Singh, the Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -4- Investigating Officer. PW.3, PW.4 and PW.8 have fully supported the prosecution case. 6. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence to prove his defence and controvert the evidence led by the prosecution. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, on the basis of the medical evidence and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which were found to be trust-worthy, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case and the impugned judgment and order. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant made three fold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. He submitted that the incident had taken place on 30.3.2003 at 6.00 P.M. As per the prosecution version, the condition of Hari Ram and Labh Singh became deteriorated after an hour and thereafter, they were taken to Hospital. In the way, there was a Police Station, but the matter was not reported to the police and the FIR was registered only on 31.3.2003 at 5.45 P.M., on the basis of statement of Karnail Singh and the said delay has not been explained. He further submitted that the this delay was used to falsely implicate the accused. Secondly, learned counsel argued that in his Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -5- statement Ex.PB, Karnail Singh named Sukhdev Singh son of Dass Singh as the person, who gave poisonous substance to Hari Ram and Labh Singh and on the basis of that statement, the police also prepared various documents by mentioning the name of accused as Sukhdev Singh, but subsequently name of the present appellant Gurdev Ram was substituted and he was made accused in the case. He submits that admittedly, Sukhdev Singh and Gurdev Ram are two different sons of Dass Ram and in order to save Sukhdev Singh, name of appellant Gurdev Ram was substituted by the complainant in connivance with the police. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for the alleged offence is not sustainable. Thirdly, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in this case, the deceased has not died due to consumption of any poisonous substance, but has died due to consumption of spurious liquor at his house. Further, there was no motive for the accused to administer poisonous substance to them. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the statement of PW.7 Dr. D.S. Bhullar, where he has stated that during the post mortem examination, semi-digested contents, found in the stomach of the deceased, were giving alcoholic smell. The said doctor also admitted that smell of organo phosphorus compound is like kerosene and he did not mention this in the post mortem report Ex.PC. In view of this, learned counsel submitted that the version of the prosecution that the deceased died due to consumption of poisonous substance is doubtful. In the last, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive of the accused to Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -6- administer the poisonous substance to Hari Ram and Labh Singh. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence, which has not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, is not safe. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the reasoning given by the learned trial court to convict and sentence the appellant. 11. After considering the various submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we do not find any substance in any of the arguments, raised by him. After going through the statement of PW.3 Karnail Singh and the documents, placed on record by the prosecution, we do not find that there was any delay in lodging of the FIR. After one hour of the taking of poisonous substance resembling liquor, the condition of Hari Ram and Labh Singh became deteriorated. After arranging for a vehicle in village Kishanpura, Hari Ram was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala by his father Karnail Singh. Victim Labh Singh was also taken to hospital. After their admission, telephone message was sent to the police. Thereafter, as per the statement of SI Balkar Singh (PW.12), the police reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and moved applications Ex.PL and Ex.PM to know the fitness of victims Hari Ram and Labh Singh, upon which the Doctor vide his endorsements Ex.PL/1 and Ex.PM/1 declared them unfit to make statement. Thereafter, SI Balkar Singh recorded the statement Ex.PB of Karnail Singh and after putting his endorsement Ex.PB/1, the statement was sent to the police station, on the Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -7- basis of which FIR Ex.PB/2 was registered by ASI Ram Ji Dass on 31.3.2003 at 5.45 P.M. Thus, we do not find any delay in the recording of FIR. In our opinion, in the aforesaid facts, there was no occasion for complainant Karnail Singh to have due consultation and deliberation, in order to falsely implicate the accused. 12. We also do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that name of appellant Gurdev Ram was substituted by the police in connivance with the complainant, by forging some documents. It is true that initially, in his statement Ex.PB, PW.3 Karnail Singh gave the name of accused as Sukhdev Singh, but immediately thereafter, he made a supplementary statement Ex.DF, where it was stated by him that when he had made his earlier statement Ex.PB, he was perplexed and had got recorded the name of accused as Sukhdev Singh son of Dass Singh, as he is called by this name in the village, but his correct name is Gurdev Ram son of Dass Ram. In his statement before the court, while appearing as PW.3, Karnail Singh has fully explained the said fact. Further, PW.4 Labh Singh (victim), who was very much present at the time of the occurrence, had consistently stated before the police as well as in the court that Gurdev Ram son of Dass Ram was the person, who gave poisonous substance resembling liquor to Hari Ram and to him. It is pertinent to mention that no suggestion was given to PW.3 Karnail Singh and PW.4 Labh Singh that it was Sukhdev Singh, who had administered the alleged poisonous substance resembling liquor to Hari Ram and Labh Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -8- Singh. In these circumstances, the discrepancy in the statement of Karnail Singh about the name of accused at the initial stage is immaterial and does not lead to any conclusion that appellant Gurdev Ram has been falsely implicated. It also does not stand to reason as to why complainant will falsely name appellant Gurdev Ram in place of his brother Sukhdev Singh. 13. We also do not find any force in the third submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution by proving the post mortem report Ex.PC and the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PG) as well as the opinion (Ex.PF) given by Dr. D.S. Bhullar (PW.7) to the effect that the cause of death in this case was poisoning from organo phosphorus compound, a group of insecticides, has clearly proved on record that deceased Hari Ram has died due to consumption of poisonous substance given by accused. A perusal of the report of the Chemical Examiner reveals that in the small intestine, liver, spleen, kidneys and blood of the deceased, organo phosphorus compound, a group of insecticides, was found. Dr. D.S. Bhullar, in his statement as PW.7, has categorically stated that at the time of post mortem examination of deceased Hari Ram, stomach along with a small intestine was kept in Jar No.1, part of liver, a part of spleen and half of each kidney were kept in Jar No.2 and the sample of blood was kept in Jar No.3. All these three Jars were handed over to the police. From the affidavit of ASI Sukhpal Singh (Ex.PH), who was then MHC, it is established that the sealed Jars containing viscera of the deceased, which was deposited with him by SI Balkar Singh on 1.4.2003 had been handed Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -9- over by him to HC Hans Raj for the purposes of its deposit in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala. HC Hans Raj (PW.1) in his affidavit Ex.PA stated that the parcel containing viscera of the deceased handed over to him by MHC Sukhpal Singh had been deposited by him in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala on 2.4.2003, with seals intact. Thus, it has been sufficiently proved that the organo phosphorus compound, a group of insecticides, was detected in the contents of the sealed Jars containing stomach, a part of small intestine, liver part of spleen and a portion of the kidneys as well as the blood sample of the deceased and the opinion given by Dr. D.S. Bhullar on the basis of the report of Chemical Examiner clearly establishes that the deceased died due to poisoning from organo phosphorus compound, a group of insecticides. The minor contradiction in the statement of PW.7 Dr. D.S. Bhullar that during the post-mortem, alcoholic smell was noticed is not sufficient to discard the aforesaid medical evidence. As far as motive is concerned, PW.3 Karnail Singh in his statement has stated that earlier the accused had an altercation with Hari Ram and Labh Singh in connection with Bara, and due to this grudge, the accused administered poisonous substance resembling liquor to Hari Ram and Labh Singh. It is also well settled that when the direct evidence, which is found to be reliable, trust-worthy and convincing, is led by the prosecution to prove the alleged offence, the motive loses its significance. 13. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Crl. A. No. 656-DB of 2004 -10- trial court and the same are, therefore, upheld. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 06, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY) ndj JUDGE