Case: Daulat Ram Vs. State Of Punjab

defence version as if it required the standard of proof as that of a prosecution case. The High Court however avoided pursuing that course and confined itself to the prosecution case. If holes can be picked in the defence that doesnt lead to the prosecution story being automatically proved. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and can derive no advantage from the weakness of the defence. Keeping that in view, we proceed further. 9. The time of the occurrence is seriously in dispute. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place at 2.00 PM and according to the defence it took place at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning. The site of the crime is not disputed. According to Dr. Vinod Kumar PW.1 the time between death and post- mortem could be upto eight hours. Thus according to the medical opinion the crime could have been committed eight hours earlier to 5.30 PM, putting it around 9.00 am. However that cannot be viewed as a certainty. Coming to the post-mortem report Ex.PA, the abdomen of the deceased when dissected showed that the stomach and its contents were healthy and empty. The small intestines and their contents were described as healthy and containing small amount of semi-digested food. Large intestines and their contents were shown to be healthy and empty. The bladder was shown to be healthy and containing small amount of urine. Thus from the post-mortem report, it is conclusively established that before his death the deceased had not taken full meals for hours. The prosecution would have us believe that uptil 2 PM, when he was about to leave Rajpura for Sunam in the company of his uncle Gurnam Singh PW, he was not expected to have taken regular breakfast or the noon-time meal. According to Gurnam Singh PW when he and Hardial Singh had reached Rajpura at about 1.00 PM, they had not taken tea etc. at the house of the deceased and further that the deceased also had not taken any food etc. in the presence of those two. The condition of the stomach and that of the intestines and the bladder does indicate that the occurrence perhaps took place much earlier to the expected time for breakfast and lunch, possibly in the morning hours. The courts below have totally ignored this aspect of the case. 10. It is worthy of recall that the deceased was an educated youngman of 25 wanting to set up a business at Rajpura. He seemingly had done well in building a house of his own. He had good parentage. Supposedly accompanying his uncle in order to go to Sunam he is said to have been wearing a T-shirt and pyjamas, a dress uncommon to be worn for going to places. The top dress does not match with the bottom one. Having regard to the normal pattern of life, the deceased was expected when wearing a T-shirt to match it with a pair of trousers or Jeans and not with pyjamas. Likewise if he was to be wearing pyjamas he would be matching it with a shirt or a kurta and not a T-shirt. The manner of his dress was least suggestive of the fact that he was set for travel to another destination 55 miles away in the company of his uncle. The dress of the deceased is therefore somewhat intriguing. It is more close to the theory that in morning hours he was casually dressed and had gone to the house of the accused with designs which were far from honourable. 11. The two supposed eye-witnesses Gurnam Singh and Hardial Singh PWs are from Sunam and according to their own version seem to have come there to take away the deceased. Their coming to the house of the deceased is a strange coincidence orchestrated so as to witness him being killed. It is rather strange that Gurnam Singh PW on his own would be caring for his nephew to desist from his amorous relationship with Pushpa, PW without taking into confidence the deceaseds father. According to his statement he had kept the affair to himself. Strangely he took into confidence rather Hardial Singh, PW and brought him along to Rajpura. It is difficult to understand what purpose had Hardial Singh to serve in accompanying Gurnam Singh to Rajpura to fetch the deceased. The prosecution has not advanced any cogent reason as to why the presence of these witnesses be not doubted, especially when the time of occurrence is shrouded in doubt. In addition thereto is the defence evidence suggesting that both police stations i.e. at Malerkotla and Sunam where the father and uncle of the deceased lived respectively were frantically being attempted to be contacted on police station to police station connection. All these facts lend credence to the defence version that the P.Ws had come to know of the crime because the matter had been reported at the police station in the first instance by P.W.6 followed by the appellant. 12. Lastly no one from the neighborhood has come forward to support the prosecution even though the investigating officer says that he questioned some people in the neighbourhood. It was for him to say as to whom he had questioned and not for the defence to elicit those names so as to call those persons in defence, as expected by the learned Sessions Judge.13. Thus on the totality of circumstances we have come to entertain the doubt that neither of the two supposed eye-witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence, nor have they witnessed the same. We have also entertained the doubt about the time of the occurrence and the manner in which the prosecution would have us believe that it took place. It could well be that it had taken place as suggested by the defence. The dress of the deceased and the contents of his abdomen suggest that he was murdered much before 2.00 PM, the time positively asserted by the prosecution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Thus on the totality of circumstances we have come to entertain the doubt that neither of the two supposed eye-witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence, nor have they witnessed the same. We have also entertained the doubt about the time of the occurrence and the manner in which the prosecution would have us believe that it took place. It could well be that it had taken place as suggested by the defence. The dress of the deceased and the contents of his abdomen suggest that he was murdered much before 2.00 PM, the time positively asserted by the prosecution.