IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 Dated of Decision:- September 09 , 2009 Gulab Singh ....APPELLANT VERSUS State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. Advocate General Haryana. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.3.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted Gulab Singh son of Kanshi Ram under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for one year. Gulab Singh was also convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PH of Pirthi Singh, given to Roshan Lal ASI in General Hospital, Fatehabad. 2 Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 Pirthi Singh stated, that at about 6.00 p.m. on 25.9.98, he came down from a jeep at the bus stand and started walking towards his house. When he reached near the flour grinding machine of Bhal Singh, Gulab Singh son of Kanshi Ram was standing there. On seeing Chhottu Ram, Gulab Singh started abusing him in the name of his mother and sister. Chhotu Ram also retaliated in the same way. A scuffle ensued. Pirthi Ram tried to separate them. In the meantime, Inder Singh son of Har Chand also reached at the spot. He also tried to separate them. Gulab Singh, when the scuffle was going on, took out a knife and gave a blow on the lower portion of left flank of Chhotu Ram. Thereafter he fled from the spot with the knife. On the way to the hospital, Chhotu Ram succumbed to the injuries. Some altercation had taken place 4/5 days earlier to the occurrence. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PH/2 was registered on 26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. at Police Station Agroha and the special report reached J.M.I.C. Hisar, on the same day at 10.15 a.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Jai Bhagwan HC PW1, Sadhu Ram Patwari PW2, C. Kashmir Singh PW3, Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4, Maya Devi PW5, C.Ranjit Singh PW6, HC Hans Raj PW7, Prithwi Singh PW8, Inder Singh PW9, ASI Roshan Lal PW10 and SI Hans Raj PW11. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded false implication on suspicion. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay of 16 hours between the time the occurrence had taken place and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Hisar. Occurrence had taken place on 25.9.98 at 6.00 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Hisar on 26.9.98 at 10.15 a.m. This delay was being utilized to 3 Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 falsely implicate the appellant. It was a case of blind murder. No one knew as to who had committed the murder of Chhotu Ram and the complainant party in connivance with the Investigating Officer falsely implicated the appellant. The motive for the commission of the offence is that 4/5 days before the occurrence, appellant allegedly went to the house of Maya Devi PW5 wife of Surjit Singh, who was married to the brother of Chhotu Ram deceased. He went there to molest her is not substantiated. It had been stated, by Maya Devi PW5, that appellant jumped over a 10 feet high wall and when she made a hue and cry, he ran away. Nothing has come on record as to how he scaled this 10 feet high wall. Appellant would have not tried to molest Maya Devi PW5 in the evening, when the family members were at home. There are discrepancies in the statements of Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9. Prithvi Singh PW8 has stated, that he sent Inder Singh PW9 to arrange a conveyance, while Inder Singh PW9 has stated, that he sent Sohan Lal to arrange for conveyance. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. One side of Knife Ex.P5 is blunt. It could not have given an injury, which had clean margins, as stated by Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4. Lastly, the learned counsel has argued, that at the most, the case falls within the ambits of Section 304 IPC. Appellant did not have an intention to commit the murder of Chhotu Ram. It was a sudden fight. There was no previous enmity between the parties. A specific blow had been given and no second attempt was made to inflict another injury on the person of the deceased. 4 Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the prosecution is an eye witness account. Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9 have seen the occurrence. Both the witnesses are independent and are not closely related to the complainant party. No any suggestion has been put to them regarding they being interested witnesses. They do not have any enmity with the appellant. The motive for the commission of the offence was that, appellant tried to molest Maya Devi PW5. A woman would not have come into the witness box and on oath level allegations against a neighbourer, if nothing had happened. Maya Devi PW5’s husband was serving in the BSF. Finding her alone in the house, appellant tried to molest her. As she made a hue and cry, he ran away. Maya Devi PW5 informed Prithwi Singh PW8, who further informed Chhotu Ram deceased of the molestation. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. In fact FIR Ex.PH/2 is prompt. Occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. Police station Agroha was about 12 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. FIR Ex.PH/2 was recorded on 26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. and by 10.15 a.m. on the same day, the special report had reached in the safe hands of the J.M.I.C., Hisar. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M. on 25.9.98. Police Station Agroha was 12 K.Ms. away from Village Kumharia, where the occurrence had taken place. It was night time. Some transport had to be arranged to take injured Chhotu Ram to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad. At the same time police had to be informed. The Investigating Officer ASI Roshan Lal PW10 recorded the statement of Prithwi Singh PW8 at General 5 Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 Hospital, Fatehabad. On the basis of which, FIR Ex.PH/2 came into existence on 26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. at Police Station Agroha. The special report reached the J.M.I.C., Hisar at 10.15 a.m. on the same day. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place in the night at 6.00 p.m. FIR was recorded at 12.30 a.m. The inquest report had also been prepared and the FIR was in the safe hands of the J.M.I.C., Hisar at 10.15 a.m. It is an eye witness account, where two independent witnesses Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9 having no enmity or ill will towards the appellant have categorically stated, that it was appellant Gulab Singh, who inflicted a knife blow in the left portion of the stomach of Chhotu Ram. Their testimony is cogent, truthful and inspires confidence. As per Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4, who performed the post mortem, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: - “1. There was a wound with clean cut margins on the left side of the chest below the axilla lying obliquely in the post axillary line 3½ inch below the post axillary fold. On further dissection the wound was going inwards and piercing the left lung at its lower lob along with pleura and thereafter it was entering the heart on its posterior surface. The size of the wound in the skin and subcutaneous tissue was 1 inch x half inch and in the lung and heart the size was also about 1 inch x half inch. The whole of the thorax cavity of the left side was full of blood. The pericardium was also full of blood. The dissection was carried out below the wound in the skin and subcutaneous infiltration of blood was seen in tissue. 6 Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4 has stated, that the injury on the person of the deceased could be caused on 25.9.1998 at about 6.00 p.m. The knife recovered is a long one. Knife Ex.P5 is a pointed weapon. It is sharp on both the sides as per Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that knife Ex.P5 was blunt from one side, is not supported by the medical evidence. In fact the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, where it has come that the margins were clean cut. Knife Ex.P5 was sharp from both sides and that is the reason that the margins were clean cut. So severe was the wound inflicted on Chhotu Ram, that knife Ex.P5 pierced the left lung and thereafter injured the heart in the posterior surface. The wound is measuring 1 inch x ½ inch from the lung to the heart. Both Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9, who are eye witnesses, in their testimony before the Court have stated, that after Chhotu Ram had alighted from a vehicle at the bus stand on 25.9.98, when he reached near the flour grinding machine of Bhal Singh, appellant Gulab Singh was standing there. He stopped Chhotu Ram after abusing him. An altercation ensued, between both of them. Both Prithvi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9 tried to separate them, but appellant, who had Knife Ex.P5 in his possession, gave a blow on the left flank of Chhotu Ram and thereafter ran away. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. The motive for the commission of the offence is spelt out by Maya Devi PW5, who has stated that her husband is working in BSF. Gulab Singh, who is neighbour and has a common wall, 4/5 days before the occurrence jumped over the common wall and tried to molest her at 9.30 p.m. She informed about this occurrence to Prithwi Singh PW8, who 7 Criminal Appeal No. 351-DB of 2001 informed Chhotu Ram. Chhotu Ram deceased was the real brother of Maya Devi PW5’s husband Surjit Singh. Learned counsel for the State has rightly argued, that Maya Devi PW5 would have not come into the witness box to state about her molestation. No woman would state that she was molested, if the truth is otherwise. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the statements of Prithwi Singh PW8 and Inder Singh PW9 are minor in nature. They do not materially affect the case. The case of the appellant does not fall within the ambits of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There was a previous quarrel 4/5 days earlier between deceased and the appellant, as deceased Chhotu Ram admonished appellant for trying to molest Maya Devi PW5. With the above discussion and observations, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) September 09, 2009 JUDGE WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO