Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 438 (PNJ)

Punna v. State Of Punjab

2005-03-24

AMAR DUTT, BALDEV SINGH

body2005
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Punna son of Nur has filed the present appeal to challenge to conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 23.8.1995. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that on 16.1.1994 at about 6 P.M. Mehla complainant (PW2) alongwith his brother Tehla was coming from the side of village Arniwala and was going towards village Killi Bodla and when they reached near the Barseem fodder field of Joginder Singh, accused Punna, Mangal and Gokha with gandasa, dang and sota respectively were seen causing injuries with their respective weapons to Kulwinder Singh son of Mehla complainant. Thereupon, Mehla and Tehla raised alarm "Na Maro Na Maro" but they did not stop. At that time Binder, the 14 years old daughter of Punna was also standing there and she raised an alarm "Na Maro Na Maro". In the presence of these witnesses, the aforementioned persons inflicted injuries on the head of Binder, as a result whereof, she too fell down. After giving these blows, Punna, Gokha and Mangal ran away from the spot and when Mehla and his brother Tehla reached near the place where the attack had taken place they found Kulwinder Singh and Binder lying dead in a pool of blood. According to Mehla, the cause of murder was the suspicion nursed by Punna that his daughter had illicit relations with Kulwinder Singh and on account thereof in pursuance of their common intention, the three assailants had killed Kulwinder Singh and Binder. Leaving Ginda and Kundan, who also reached at the spot near the dead bodies, Mehla went to Police Station Makhu where his statement was recorded by Inspector Baljinder Singh (PW5). After recording of the F.I.R., Inspector Baljinder Singh had accompanied the two witnesses to the spot on the following morning. There, he prepared the inquest report Ex. PB in relation to the dead body of Kulwinder Singh and ASI Gurmohan Singh prepared inquest report Ex. PE in relation to the dead body of Binder. Inspector Baljinder Singh lifted the blood stained earth from the places where the dead bodies were lying and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. One blade of the gandasa alongwith broken dang portion of the gandasa was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ. PE in relation to the dead body of Binder. Inspector Baljinder Singh lifted the blood stained earth from the places where the dead bodies were lying and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. One blade of the gandasa alongwith broken dang portion of the gandasa was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PL of the place of occurrence, searched for the accused and was able to arrest them only on 23.1.1994 when they were produced by Swaran Masih, Municipal Commissioner. He had also got conducted post mortem on the dead bodies of Kulwinder Singh and Binder and on completion of the investigation, put in challan against the accused. 3. After going through the papers attached with the challan, they Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court whereupon the charge was framed against the accused under Sections 302/34 IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence in support of its case. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Vajinder Singh; PW2 Mehla; PW3 Tehla; PW4 Parwinder Singh; Patwari, PW5 Inspector Baljinder Singh and PW6 ASI Gurmohan Singh and tendered into evidence reports of Chemical Examiner Exs. PR and PS and reports of the Serologist Exs. PT and PT. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.PC for recording their explanation in relation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, all the accused denied all the circumstances. Accused Punna explained as under :- "I am innocent. I was working as Siri with Harbhajan Singh brother of Joginder Singh and when after sunset I was coming to my village, I heard voice of my daughter Binder and Kulwinder from wheat crop which adjoined the barseem crop. I went towards that side and saw them in compromising position. I was having gandasa which I used to carry due to terrorist prevailing condition. I got enraged and under sudden and grave provocation, I gave 2-3 injuries with gandasa first to Kulwinder and then to Binder and, thereafter, blade of my gandasa was broken and then I gave further injuries to Kulwinder who had fallen down on receipt of first 2-3 injuries, with the dang portion. I went to Mukhtiar Singh and Nishabar Singh of my village and told them the whole story. I went to Mukhtiar Singh and Nishabar Singh of my village and told them the whole story. They took me to the police station Makhu and produced me before Baljinder Singh who after detaining me there left for the spot. I had thrown the dang portion of the gandasa at the spot." Accused Gokha asserted as under :- "I was attending the party arranged by Khushia in connection with the birth of his grandson. I was not present at the spot. I am innocent." Accused Mangal explained as under :- "I am innocent. I have been involved falsely being the brother of accused Punna." 6. Accused examined Gajjan Singh as DW1, Mukhtiar Singh as DW2 and Surinder Singh Atwal, Superintendent of Police (H) Hoshiarpur as DW3. 7. The trial Court after hearing arguments came to the conclusion that the case against Gokha and Mangal was not made out and gave them the benefit of doubt and convicted Punna appellant under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months for causing death of Kulwinder Singh and further sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for three months for causing the death of Binder. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the State and gone through the record. 9. The short point, which has been raised before us, is that the facts and circumstances of the case as brought out on the record clearly warrant an inference that the sight of seeing his daughter in the company of the son of Mehla PW2 provided grave provocation, which impelled Punna to react suddenly and killed both of them. In such a situation, it could not be held that the appellant had intentionally killed Kulwinder Singh and Binder and, therefore, it was a case, in which the sentence imposed upon the appellant, should at least be reduced, even if the Court is unable to accept the argument that the case would fall within Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. 10. The argument, we are afraid cannot be accepted. 10. The argument, we are afraid cannot be accepted. From the statement of Mehla PW2, it is clear that Punna appellant and his brothers had the suspicion that "Kulwinder Singh deceased was having illicit relations with Binder deceased." To the same effect is the testimony of PW3 Tehla and despite lengthy cross-examination, no challenge has been made to this aspect of the prosecution version. Rather, it has been suggested to Mehla PW2 that Punna appellant alone caused injuries to Kulwinder Singh and Binder under grave and sudden provocation as he found them in a compromising position. To the same effect is the cross-examination of Tehla. The trial Court has, after going through the evidence, accepted the suggestion presumably on account of the fact that the fatal injuries are attributed to the person yielding the gandasa namely Punna. It has given benefit of doubt to the brothers of (wielding ?) Punna and convicted him only under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. This was the only benefit, which he could have sought and the same having been given to him, the finding regarding his responsibility for the death of his daughter Binder and her friend Kulwinder Singh has to be affirmed. Since there is no appeal against acquittal of the two brothers of Punna, who had also faced their trial for the murders of Kulwinder Singh and Binder, we need not go into the question of whether their acquittal is not justified. 11. The only argument, which remains to be dealt with, is the question as to whether the appellant would, in the circumstances of the case, not deserve the punishment less than imprisonment for life. While appreciating this submission, one has to bear in mind the fact that the two persons had died in the incident and though the grouse of the appellant against Kulwinder Singh would be understandable but having done him to death the appellant proceeds to cause fatal injuries to his own daughter and for this conduct he cannot take refuge to the plea that he was reacting to grave and sudden provocation held out to him by the children. The appellant, in our opinion, has already got the maximum benefit that could be extended to him. The appellant, in our opinion, has already got the maximum benefit that could be extended to him. The imprisonment for life imposed upon him for murdering the young persons, who were on the threshold of their lives, in our opinion, does not, in the circumstances pointed out hereinbefore, warrant any reduction. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.