Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 227 (PNJ)

Mangal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-02-23

T.H.B.CHALAPATHI

body2000
Judgment T.H.B.Chalapathi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on the accused- appellant in Sessions Case No. 30 of 7.5.1996 (Sessions Trial No. 27 of 25.6.1996) by his judgment dated 3.12.1997 for the offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution may briefly be stated as follows :- One Surmej Singh was working as Chowkidar in Forest Department. On 20.2.1996, his father Nazar Singh went to Aliwal to meet his son. There he came to know that his son went to village Kaler on official work. Then Nazar Singh went to Kaler to meet his son in the company of accused Mangal Singh, Shishpal and Mann Singh. At about 9-30 P.M. deceased Surmej Singh and accused Mangal Singh started quarrelling with each other. Mangal Singh took a Sota and dealt a blow on the head of the deceased who succumbed to his injuries. Mangal Singh ran away from the scene of offence. Shishpal and Mann Singh also witnessed the incident. On the basis of the statement of Nazar Singh, father of the deceased, the case was registered and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed in the Court. 3. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions as the offence was exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked documents. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the eaccused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, the accused stated that he was falsely implicated, but did not adduce any evidence. 5. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of six months. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, the accused filed this appeal. 7. PW-1 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of six months. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, the accused filed this appeal. 7. PW-1 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries : (1) Two abrasions 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of both shoulders. (2) An abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the front and middle of chest upper part. (3) Four abrasions 1 cm x linear, 1-1/2 x linear, 2 cm x linear, 2 cm x linear, 1-3/4 cm x linear on and around prominence of left cheek. (4) A lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm on the left parietal region of head parallel to the midline and starting from 4 cm from the anterior hair line goes upwards, 2 cm. from the midline, underlying bone is fractured. On dissection, he found that the membrance and brain was ruptured and was full of blood in skull cavity. It is also in his evidence that stomach contained 250 cc. of semi digested food. According to PW-1, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. From the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that the death of Surmej Singh was homicidal. The question is whether the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-2 and PW-3. At this stage, it may be stated that PW-3 who is said to be an eye-witness did not fully support the case of the prosecution. His evidence clearly proves the presence of the accused Mangal Singh and the deceased Surmej Singh at the place of the incident. At about 10/10.30 P.M. Shish Pal, Mangal Singh, Surmej Singh and Nazir Singh were present in village Kaler in a tent and they heard a heated exchange of words between Surmej Singh and Mangal Singh from outside the tent. The light was on in the tent, but when they went out, the wire got snapped and it went off. At about 10/10.30 P.M. Shish Pal, Mangal Singh, Surmej Singh and Nazir Singh were present in village Kaler in a tent and they heard a heated exchange of words between Surmej Singh and Mangal Singh from outside the tent. The light was on in the tent, but when they went out, the wire got snapped and it went off. Mangal Singh raised an alarm that he was being attacked and then he went out and saw Surmej Singh was already lying there and he was in his last breath. In the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he categorically stated that Mangal Singh and Surmej Singh were grappling with each other and there was none else at that time. The evidence of PW-4 who examined Mangal Singh on 24.2.1996 clearly shows that Mangal Singh accused also sustained injuries. PW-4 found the following injuries on the person of Mangal Singh :- 1. Bluish black contusion 5x3-1/2 around the right eye. No red colouration was present in the right eye. 2. Bluish black contusion 5-1/2x3 cm around the left eye. No red colouration was present in the left eye. 3. Diffused bluish black swelling 4x3-1/2 cms on the left ear pinna. 4. Scabbed semi-healed abrasion 3 cms x linear on the back of left fore-arm in the middle. 5. Scabbed semi-healed abrasion 5 cm. linear on the loweer part, left thigh on its outer aspect. 9. Thus the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 clearly shows that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at the time of the incident and that the deceased lying down while the accused also sustained some injuries as noted by PW-4. PW-2 is the father of the deceased. His presence at that time and place of occurrence is admitted by PW-3 in his evidence. The evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded simply becaue he happened to be the father of the deceased. His evidence also indicates that there was heated exchange of words between Surmej Singh, deceased, and accused Mangal Singh. He tried to intervene, but they did not dissuade from what they were doing. Mangal Singh then left the tent and was followed by the deceased Surmej Singh and while going out, the accused lifted, a log of wood and gave blow on the deceaseds head as a result of which he fell down and died there and then itself. 10. Mangal Singh then left the tent and was followed by the deceased Surmej Singh and while going out, the accused lifted, a log of wood and gave blow on the deceaseds head as a result of which he fell down and died there and then itself. 10. A combined reading of evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 clearly shows that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and both the deceased and the accused sustained injuries and that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. It is clear from the evidence on record that because of the, quarrel that ensured between the accused and the deceased, both of them not only exchanged heated words, but beat each other. The injuries sustained by the deceased proved fatal. 11. On a consideration of the evidence on record, I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. only. Accordingly, I confirm the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. only. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years to and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- In the circumstances of the case when there was no intent to cause death, I am of the opinion that the sentence of 10 years is too severe a punishment for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. I convert the sentence of Imprisonment of 10 years to R.I. to a period of five years while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the default sentence. Subject to the modification, as stated above, the appeal is dismissed.