Case: Labhu Ram And Ors Vs. The State Of Punjab

2. The prosecution case in short is that there was a house belonging to Hari Singh and Mehar Singh who were tailors by profession. A day before the occurrence the said house was purchased by Bachan Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh for a consideration of Rs.In the sale deed there was a recital that the purchaser herself would obtain the actual physical possession. Only symbolic possession was given to the said purchaser. It is the prosecution case that PW 5 Piara Singh was the tenant in the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 80. The appellants in a bid to obtain actual physical possession after the purchase demolished a wall and a door of the said house in the evening of February 9, 1976. Piara Singh thereafter sought the help of the deceased Bhanan Singh, Dr. Kewal Krishan Sood PW 7 and Darshan Singh. The said persons inquired from the appellants as to why they had demolished a portion of the said house to which they received the reply that since the appellants became the owners by purchase they would take possession. The deceased and the said other persons intervened in order to settle the matter amicably and desired to see the registered sale deed and the matter was postponed for such settlement on the next day. On the early morning of February 10, 1976 at 4 a.m., the appellants came in front of the house of the deceased Bhanan Singh and started hurling abuses on him. Darshan Singh at that time was armed with a sua and the remaining appellants had lathis in their hands. They asked Bhanan Singh to come out of the house and to see the consequences for rendering help to Piara Singh. Bhanan Singh and PW 4 Bhagwan Kaur then came out of the house. Piara Singh and Gurdev Singh also came out of their houses. They tried to persuade the appellants not to hurl abuses. On this Darshan Singh gave a blow with the sua on the head of the deceased Bhanan Singh, but the weapon missed the head and the dang portion of the sua hit the head. Gurdial Singh also hit Bhanan Singh with lathi on the right leg. Malkiat Singh gave lathi blow on the back of Bhanan Singh deceased. When Bhagwan Kaur, Piara Singh and Gurdev Singh advanced to intervene, they were also given blows by Gurdial Singh. Thereafter, the other appellants gave blows to Piara Singh. The accused gave some more blows to Bhanan Singh, when he had fallen. According to the prosecution case the incident had taken place near the house of Bhanan Singh and the house of the appellants was at a distance of about 60 yards from the said place. Bhanan Singh died at the spot and the appellants then carried away his body to their house.3. Bhagwan Kaur PW 4 lodged the FIR at the Police Station Industrial Area, Ludhiana, shortly after the incident at 5 a.m. It may be stated here that the distance of the Police Station was one mile from the spot. The copy of the FIR was received by the Magistrate at Ludhiana at 7 a.m. on the same day.4. All the appellants, except deceased Labhu Ram, had pleaded that they were absent from their house at the time of the incident and Labhu Ram accused took the plea that being quite old it was difficult for him to walk and he also stated that Gurdial Singh and Darshan Singh had been plying rehras and for that reason they were not in their house on the night of the occurrence. He also stated that his other son Malkiat Singh was not residing in the family house at Dashmesh Nagar when the occurrence had taken place. The said Malkiat Singh was employed as Enforcement Inspector in the Agricultural Department, Ludhiana and he used to reside in another house of his father situated in New Janta Nagar. The said Labhu Ram also stated that he was falsely implicated.5. Malkiat Singh had also stated that he used to stay with his family members at New Janta Nagar residence which was aboutmiles from Dashmesh Nagar and he was not present at the time of occurrence. He further stated that he was informed by Pritam Singh, Gurdev Singh and Dayal Singh at about 2.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence that some persons were abusing and were creating nuisance on public road in their Mohalla at Dashmesh Nagar and apprehending trouble to the family members at Dashmesh Nagar from such persons, he went to the police out post atBasant Park alongwith the said three persons and gave a report in writing to the Munshi of the said out post, at about 3 a.m. He got a copy of the said report duly acknowledged and signed by the said Munshi Mahender Singh. The Munshi sent a constable with Malkiat Singh and his companions to the police division No. 6 and Mahinder Singh then came to know that some police officials had already gone to Dashmesh Nagar. He thereafter came back to his New Janata Nagar residence and reported the matter to his office.6. The Investigating Officer had found the dead body of Bhanan Singh inside the house of the appellants. The case of the appellants was that Bhanan Singh having consumed liquor during the night, came over to their house by scaling over the boundary wall. He however fell from the wall and received injuries causing his death. The body of the deceased Bhanan Singh was sent for postmortem examination and autopsy was conducted at 4 p.m. on February 10, 1976 by Dr. Jagjit Singh PW.1 and from such examination it transpired that the deceased received 19 injuries, including lacerated wounds, contusions and abrasions. It also transpired fromexamination that sternum bone was fractured in its upper middle part corresponding to injury No. 4. There was fracture of the second, third, fourth and fifth ribs on the right side of the chest corresponding to injury No. 2. There was also fracture of fifth and sixth ribs on the right side of its back which was the result of injury No. 11. The right pleura was injured and the cavity was full of blood. The right lung was also injured in middle and upper lobes. According to doctor, the death was due to shock, internal haemorrhage and injuries to the vital structure of the right chest caused by injuries Nos. 2 and 11. According to the doctor both the said injuries were fatal and each one of them was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.7. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence adduced in the case and other materials on record, held that the prosecution case was proved and convicted the appellants and passed sentences mentioned hereinbefore. On appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment affirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants and also against the deceased appellant Labhu Ram and dismissed the appeal.

Reasoning: 11. After giving our anxious considerations of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears to us that in the instant case the depositions of Bhagwan Kaur PW 4 and two injurednamely, PW 5 and PW 6 are wholly reliable. Such depositions do not suffer from any inconsistency. In our view, conviction can be based on the said depositions of theThe case sought to be made out by the accused about the circumstances causing the death of Bhanan Singh is not only false but absolutely absurd. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased also rules out the case of the defence that the deceased went to the house of the accused being drunk and attempted to go inside the house of the accused by scaling the wall while abusing the inmates and threatening to molest the daughters in the house of Labhu Ram, but suffered a fall from the wall of the house of the accused and died at the spot on receiving injuries on account of such fall from the wall. The wall is only five feet high and serious injuries suffered by the deceased could not have occurred by a fall from such small height. It is a pity that the wife of accused Labhu Ram was examined by the accused to give a false and absurd account of the defence case.12. In our view, the learned counsel for the State is also justified in contending that the alibi of Malkiat Singh that he had been to the said policeat 3 a.m. to lodge an information about the presence of some drunkards in Dashmesh Nagar Mohalla is absolutely false and should be discarded. It appears to us that after the commission of the crime alleged against him, Malkiat wanted to create an alibi and lodged a report at a later stage in the said policeIt appears from theexamination that the deceased had been brutally assaulted by the accused thereby causing 19 injuries on his person. The evidences adduced by the eyewitnesses about the injuries caused to the deceased also tallies with thereport and deposition of the doctor. In our view, such injuries would not have been caused if the accused did not intend to kill him. There is also evidence that even when the deceased fell down after receiving injuries, he was not spared but the accused further assaulted him. Such conduct of the accused is only consistent with an intention to kill the deceased.