Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1136 (PNJ)

Hari Kishan v. State Of Haryana

2000-09-20

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. As both Crl. A.No. 26-DB of 1996 filed by Jai Narain and Hari Om and Crl. A.No. 25-DB of 1996 filed by Hari Kishan arise out of the common order of their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Rohtak, the same are disposed of by this judgment. 2. Anita (deceased) daughter of Paul Singh was married with Hari Om appellant on 11.5.1992. Hari Kishan a real brother of Hari Om was married about 15 years ago. Jai Narain is the father while Smt. Bhanwati is the mother of Hari Om appellant. 3. Since the marriage took place it was being claimed by Rajesh, PW.7, the brother of the deceased and Kitabo, PW.8, mother of the deceased that these accused were causing great harassment to the deceased and had been demanding valuables, money and other articles and did not allow their daughter to live in peace. On 6.9.1992, Rajesh along with his maternal grand-father Kartar Singh went to know about the welfare of his sister at village Marodhi along with Sube Singh. Simultaneously Hari Om, Hari Kishan and Jai Narain entered the house along with them. They shut the door and requested with folded hands that they committed a blunder and that they should be pardoned. On the asking of Rajesh, Jai Narain, father-in-law of Anita told that at about midnight his son Hari Om and the deceased were exchanging abusive language over the matter of dowry. He tried to pacify Anita but she started hurling filthy abuses to them. On this, he caught hold of Anita while and Hari Om and Hari Kishan put her Duppata around her neck and then pulled the same from both ends, as a result of which Anita fell down on the ground. He further told that they gave beatings to her mercilessly and his son Hari Om inserted an iron rod in the private part of Anita as a result of which she died. Leaving Kartar Singh and Sube Singh to guard the dead body of Sunita, Rajesh went to lodge the report with the police. On the way at Bhalli Chowk, SI Gurbachan Singh, PW.9 met him and he made his statement Ex.PK. After making his endorsement Ex.PK/1, the aforesaid Sub-Inspector sent the same to the police station for registration of a case and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PK/2 was recorded. On the way at Bhalli Chowk, SI Gurbachan Singh, PW.9 met him and he made his statement Ex.PK. After making his endorsement Ex.PK/1, the aforesaid Sub-Inspector sent the same to the police station for registration of a case and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PK/2 was recorded. The special report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate which reached him at 2.15 P.M. Thereafter SI Gurbachan Singh, PW.9, along with Rajesh, PW.1, went to the place of occurrence. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PN of the place of occurrence. Near the cot where the dead body of Anita was lying a curved iron rod, broken pieces of bangles, Chugal, Tai (used in Hooka), a Duppata were lying and a pair of Chappals. All these articles of Chappals were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. He prepared sketch of iron rod which is Ex.PM. The Investigating Officer photographed the scene of occurrence. He prepared inquest report Ex.PC. It was found that the deceased had been strangulated with a scarf around her neck and an iron rod was found to have been inserted in her private part and it was stated to be a brutal murder. The clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. He arrested Hari Om accused on 9.9.1992, Jai Narain on 11.9.1992 and Bhanwati on 17.9.1992. 4. On 7.9.1992, at 1.15 P.M. Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, PW.3 along with Dr. Indu Lalit conducted post mortem on the dead body of Anita and found the following injuries :- There was faint green coloured irregular 3 cm wide ligature mark in front of neck just below thyroid cartilage. Mark was going downwards, laterally and posteriorly reaching a point just above nape of neck where the mark was violet coloured and wide. On dissection of neck there was marked echymosis in the neck, subcutaneous space, neck muscles and paratracheal space. Echymosis was more marked above and below the ligature mark. Hyiod bone was intact. Tracheal muscle was markedly congested. No ligature material was present on the body. (1) There was mark echymosis in both conjectives. (2) There was violet bruise 3 cm x 2 cm over left temple, 2 cm lateral to left eye. On dissection echymosis was present deep to it. (3) 4 cm in diameter black coloured raised mark (Burn mark) was present over right cheek 3 cm below and lateral to right angle of mouth. (2) There was violet bruise 3 cm x 2 cm over left temple, 2 cm lateral to left eye. On dissection echymosis was present deep to it. (3) 4 cm in diameter black coloured raised mark (Burn mark) was present over right cheek 3 cm below and lateral to right angle of mouth. On dissection echymosis was present deep to the injury. (4) 0.75 cm in diameter punctured wound with irregular margin was present over perineum, 3 cm from anal verge at 7 OClock position. On probing track was going for 3 cm depth. There was corresponding hole in the underwear and Salwar. (5) There were two violet bruises 2 x 1/2 cm and 1 x 1/2 cm over left side of back just above iliac crest. (6) There were two violet bruises 3 cm x 2 cm and 1.5 x 1 cm over front of middle of left leg. 5. Both the lungs were congested. Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. Membrance and brain tissues were congested. There were few digested food particles and gastric juices in the stomach. There was no mark of injury around vagina, labia majora, introitus and vaginal wall. There was blood- stained discharge in the vagina and cloth pad applied to the genetalia and underwear. Uterus was normal and healthy. 6. In the opinion of the doctor the death was as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation which was ante-mortem. Ex.PB is the copy of the post mortem report. 7. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PQ, Duppata, shirt, Salwar, Underwear and pad were stained with human blood and on iron rod the material was disintegrated. 8. Soon after the investigation was over, Hari Om, Jai Narain and Bhanwati were tried under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Hari Kishan appellant was also summoned to face his trial along with his co-accused. The appellants took up the plea that Hari Om was suffering from schizophrenia and rather was of unsound mind and, therefore, he was incapable of committing any such crime. Hari Kishan claimed to be living separately from the family of Hari Om. The appellants took up the plea that Hari Om was suffering from schizophrenia and rather was of unsound mind and, therefore, he was incapable of committing any such crime. Hari Kishan claimed to be living separately from the family of Hari Om. The mother-in-law Bhanwati and father-in-law Jai Narain also claimed that they lived together but separate from their son Hari Om and therefore possibly could not demand any dowry etc. In defence Lachhi Ram was produced as DW.1. He created a version that in fact he has two daughters and one was married with Hari Kishan and the other Raj Kumari with Hari Om appellant. Raj Kumari was not being sent to live with Hari Om as the latter was suffering from schizophrenia. Therefore, Hari Om deserted Raj Kumari and married Anita. Anita was married earlier somewhere else and started living with Hari Om. Dharam Pal, DW.2 deposed that Anita was living with the accused persons without any relationship. He stated that Jai Narain and Bhanwati accused were living separately from Hari Om on the first floor of the house. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, disbelieving the version of the defence that Hari Om was ever schizophrenic and story set up by Lachhi Ram, DW.1 and Dharam Pal, DW.2, acquitted Bhanwati, the mother-in-law of the deceased but held Jai Narain, father-in-law, Hari Om, husband and Hari Krishan brother of the husband of the deceased guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the three appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that Hari Om was schizohrenic and did not understand nor had the mental ability to discriminate between the right and wrong and he was actually of unsound mind. In this behalf he has referred to the version of Dr. D.K. Puri, Psychiatry Department, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, who stated that the accused may be schizophrenic but he was not of unsound mind. In this behalf he has referred to the version of Dr. D.K. Puri, Psychiatry Department, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, who stated that the accused may be schizophrenic but he was not of unsound mind. He was a fit person to stand trial and to face the trial as such. The most vital factor for consideration remains to be that there is no medical evidence that on the date of occurrence the accused Hari Om was schizophrenic or was of unsound mind. There is nothing to suggest that since when Hari Om appellant became schizophrenic. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned and discussed in detail that may be that a person is a schizophrenic though the appellant is not but the schizphrenic person may have lucid period of sanity. So, the fits of uncontrolled movements may be there in life but not that the appellant was of that kind. The appellant Hari Om was being examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he did not respond to the questions put to him. The parents of Hari Om appellant have not stated anything cogent in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Hari Om was really schizophrenic. There is not even a single medical prescription of the period prior to the alleged occurrence to say that he was schizophrenic. The medical opinion regarding him may be reproduced as such :- "Hari Om accused present in Court is now fit to stand trial. He is capable of making his defence. I had also observed him today in Court and had also earlier examined in the hospital." 11. Earlier to it this Medical Officer could not fix any date, record or reasons or conducted any test or observation when and how the appellant was schizophrenic. 12. In view of such a statement, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants remains untenable that the appellant Hari Om is of a unsound mind. We are rather of the opinion that the appellant Hari Om is claiming to be a schizophrenic to ward off the punishment. Lachhi Ram, DW.1 was cross-examined and he was even suggested that no lady with the name of Raj Kumari was his daughter much less having been married with Hari Om appellant. We are rather of the opinion that the appellant Hari Om is claiming to be a schizophrenic to ward off the punishment. Lachhi Ram, DW.1 was cross-examined and he was even suggested that no lady with the name of Raj Kumari was his daughter much less having been married with Hari Om appellant. No such lady Raj Kumari was produced in defence to say that she was ever married with Hari Om or he was suffering from schizophrenia. Moreover, it is impossible that a patient of schizophrenia would be married again with Anita after he was abandoned by his first wife Raj Kumari. So the defence taken by Hari Om appellant is a tissue of lies. 13. The statement of Rajesh, PW.7, brother of the deceased that his sister was being seriously maltreated by the husband and there was demand of dowry and other articles is a good piece of evidence. His version that there was an extra judicial confession before him by Jai Narain, father-in-law of the deceased that his son had killed Anita is natural and believable. There is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit this witness. Smt. Kitabo the mother of the decreased has also supported the case of the prosecution. She was cross-examined at length and she was narrated that her daughter was being maltreated by Hari Om appellant. We cannot interpret such a clear evidence in any different way. 14. So, we find that when the grain is sifted from the chaff the part of the statement of Rajesh brother of the deceased to explain that may be Hari Kishan was living separately from the couple i.e. Hari Om and Anita, Hari Kishan was present on the scene of occurrence when the police reached the house of the in-laws of the deceased. However, it is also clear that Hari Kishan is married since very long and he was not living with his parents or his brother Hari Om. Jai Narain, father-in-law of the deceased, is a pretty old person and might not have participated in the alleged commission of the crime. It is unbelievable that he would see his son to put an iron rod in the private part of the deceased. Hence, both Jai Narain and Hari Kishan are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Jai Narain, father-in-law of the deceased, is a pretty old person and might not have participated in the alleged commission of the crime. It is unbelievable that he would see his son to put an iron rod in the private part of the deceased. Hence, both Jai Narain and Hari Kishan are acquitted of the charges framed against them. But we are of the considered view that Hari Om, who is pretending himself to be a schizohphrenic and looking to the evidence of Rajesh, PW.7 and Kitabo, PW.8, brother and mother of the deceased and the fact that the deceased was with the accused at the relevant time and the accused has not only failed to furnish the proper explanation as to the cause of death of the deceased, rather has set up a fabricated story, we find no reason to see the case with any doubt whatsoever. Rather the case against Hari Om stood established beyond the least shadow of doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was right in convicting him. In view of the above discussion, Crl. A.No. 25-DB of 1996 filed by Hari Kishan is allowed and Crl. A.No. 26-DB of 1996 qua Jai Narain is allowed and qua Hari Om is dismissed.