Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 886 (PNJ)

Biru Ram v. State Of Punjab

2005-08-22

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 1.5.2003 of the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby he convicted appellant Biru Ram under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for six months. He further convicted Biru Ram under Sections 201/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Mohinder Ram given to Major Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib on 10.4.1999 at 6.15 a.m. at the turning point of Village Talania. Mohinder Ram stated that he is a labourer. On 9.4.1999 at 11 p.m., he along with his younger brother Biru Singh had come back from work. A stero was playing loudly in the house of Biru Ram alias Bittu son of Shana Chand Bazigar. Biru Rams brother Shingara Ram also lived there. The stereo was causing inconvenience to the complainant party. Mohinder Ram asked his brother Biru Singh to ask Biru Ram alias Bittu to turn down the volume of the stereo. Biru Singh scaled the 1 foot high wall which separated the houses of the complainant and the appellant party. Biru Singh requested Bimla Devi alias Bholi, sister-in-law of Biru Ram to bring down the volume of the stereo. Brother of Bimla Devi namely Mohan Lal alias Mohni who was also present, came there and said that they would not bring down the volume of the tape recorder (stereo) and Biru Singh can do whatever he likes. In the meanwhile, Bimla Devis Devar (husbands younger brother) Biru Ram alias Bittu and his mother-in-law Piari Devi also came out. Biru Ram pushed down Biru Singh in the room and said that they would teach him a lesson, as to why he was asking them that the sound of the tape-recorder be reduced. A scuffle took place between Biru Ram alias Bittu and Biru Singh. Complainant Mohinder Ram went there to separate them. Bimla Devi caught hold of Biru Singh from his right arm. A scuffle took place between Biru Ram alias Bittu and Biru Singh. Complainant Mohinder Ram went there to separate them. Bimla Devi caught hold of Biru Singh from his right arm. Mohan Lal caught hold of the hair of Biru Singh and Piari Devi caught Biru Singh from his left arm. Piari Devi, mother-in-law of Biru Ram then shouted that Biru Singh should be eliminated. Mohinder Ram who also came to the place of occurrence asked them as to why they were doing this. At this, Biru Ram alias Bittu who was holding a knife in his right hand, gave a blow on the chest of Biru Singh. Biru Singh fell down, while falling down, Biru Ram gave another knife blow on the back of Biru Singh. Mohinder Ram raised an alarm. Biru Ram alias Bittu run after complainant Mohinder Ram with his knife. Mohinder Ram then entered his own house and locked his room from inside. Mohinder Ram and his wife Jito Devi saw from the window, Biru Ram, Mohan Lal and Bimla Devi dragging the body of Biru Singh. After about two hours, when everything became normal, Mohinder Ram found the body of his brother near a cycle-kiosk (Khokha). 3. Formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded on 10.4.1999 at 6.35 a.m. at Police Station Bassi Pathana. Special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on 10.4.1999 at 9 a.m. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. K.S. Khullar, PW-2 Mohinder Ram complainant, PW-3 Jeeto Devi, PW-4 HC Harpreet Singh, PW-5 Sadhu Singh Draftsman, PW-6 ASI Rajinderpal Singh, PW-7 SI Major Singh, PW-8 ASI Hakikat Singh, PW-9 Mohan Lal, PW-10 HC Gurmail Singh, PW-11 Constable Parkash Kumar and PW-12 HC Pritpal Singh. 5. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated as under :- "On 9.4.1999 at about 11 p.m. Biru Singh deceased came in the room of Bimla Devi with an evil eye and bad intention. Bimla Devi who is my real Bhabi was in her room and I was present in the house. Piari Devi and Mohan Lal were not present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence. Then Biru Singh tried to molest Bimla Devi and immediately I intervened and tried to stop Biru Singh from doing this. Then Biru Singh took out the knife from his (Dub) (underneath his shirt) and attacked me. Piari Devi and Mohan Lal were not present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence. Then Biru Singh tried to molest Bimla Devi and immediately I intervened and tried to stop Biru Singh from doing this. Then Biru Singh took out the knife from his (Dub) (underneath his shirt) and attacked me. Bimla Devi also intervened and Biru Singh gave a knife blow in the stomach of Bimla Devi and then attacked me. Then I out of self-defence of my life and the life of Bimla Devi and in order to save myself and also to save Bimla Devi had scuffle with Biru Singh and during that scuffle, Biru Singh suffered knife injury. Then Bimla Devi was taken to the Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib and the doctor after conducting her medical referred her to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala where she was operated upon. I have been falsely involved in this case and I am absolutely innocent." 6. To prove his case, the appellant brought into the witness-box DW-1 Dr. Ishwar Singh and DW-2 Dr. Paras Kumar Pandey. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the occurrence had taken place, but not in the way the prosecution has stated so. Deceased Biru Singh armed with a knife came to the house of Biru Ram alias Bittu. He came with bad intentions to molest Biru Rams real Bhabhi Bimla Devi. He entered the room. Appellant intervened to stop Biru Singh, but Bimla Devi was attacked and a knife blow was given in her stomach. The injury on the person of Bimla Devi cannot be by a friendly hand, or self-suffered. Dr. Ishwar Singh (DW-1) has stated that the injury, is a grievous injury, so it is unlikely to be self- suffered. The injury had been caused by a sharp edged weapon and the probable duration of this injury was six hours as per Dr. Ishwar Singh (DW-1). The injuries on the person of Bimla Devi have not been explained by the prosecution. The independent witness Pola Ram who was a recovery witness of the knife, has not been brought into the witness-box by the prosecution, for the sole reason that he would not have supported the prosecution case. 8. Ishwar Singh (DW-1). The injuries on the person of Bimla Devi have not been explained by the prosecution. The independent witness Pola Ram who was a recovery witness of the knife, has not been brought into the witness-box by the prosecution, for the sole reason that he would not have supported the prosecution case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the alternative, has argued that at the most the appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C., as it was a case of sudden quarrel. Appellant did not have the intention to commit the murder of Biru Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued that Dr. Ishwar Singh (DW-1) has stated that possibility of injury on the person of Bimla Devi could be suffered by falling on a sharp edged weapon, during a scuffle. The occurrence and the place of occurrence has been admitted by the appellant. Deceased, if he wanted to molest Bimla Devi, there was no need for him to do so at 11 Oclock in the night. He could have molested her in the fields, or during day time, when other members of the family were not at home. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 11. The date, time and place of occurrence is not disputed by the prosecution and the defence. Two versions have come forward before the Court. One, brought forward by the prosecution that deceased Biru Singh had come to ask the appellant party to slow down the volume of stereo and the other as per the statement of appellant Biru Ram given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant has tried to make out a case of private defence. 12. It was 11 Oclock in the night. This is the time to rest and go to sleep. Complainant party was getting irritated by the loudness of the stereo. Deceased Biru Singh was sent by his brother Mohinder Ram (PW-2) to the house of appellant Biru Ram alias Bittu to tell them to bring down to pitch of the stereo. Biru Singh went over the 1 foot high common wall to the house of the appellant. Bimla Devi, Bhabhi of Biru Ram who was present along with Mohan Lal, brother of Bimla Devi, told Biru Singh that they would not turn down the volume. Biru Singh went over the 1 foot high common wall to the house of the appellant. Bimla Devi, Bhabhi of Biru Ram who was present along with Mohan Lal, brother of Bimla Devi, told Biru Singh that they would not turn down the volume. In the meantime, appellant Biru Ram along with his mother Piari Devi also reached there. An altercation took place. Biru Ram then inflicted two knife blows on the person of Biru Singh. The injuries were fatal. It has come in the testimony of Mohinder Ram (PW-2) that before the knife injuries were inflicted on the person of Biru Singh, Biru Ram and Biru Singh started grappling with each other. Complainant Mohinder Ram (PW-2) went to the rescue of his brother, but on seeing, that after injuring his brother, the appellant was coming to attack him, fled from the place of occurrence. After jumping the one foot wall, he came to his own house and locked himself in the room. He and his wife then saw, that Biru Singh being picked up and taken outside the house of the appellant party. It has come in the statement of Mohinder Ram (PW-2) that the complainant party and the appellant party were on visiting terms. Whenever they visited each other, they would cross the joint wall between their houses. This witnesses (PW-2) has further stated that when appellant Biru Ram and Biru Singh deceased were grappling with each other, Biru Ram did not have a knife in his hand, but the knife was in his Dabb. After sometime, the knife was taken out and injuries were inflicted on Biru Singh. Grappling took place for 2 to 4 minutes. 13. It is clear from the statement of Mohinder Ram (PW-2) that both the parties were on visiting terms. A wall of one foot height separated their houses. The quarrel started because of the stereo (tape-recorder) being played at a high pitch. Deceased Biru Singh went only to request the appellant to turn down the volume of the stereo, but instead a quarrel errupted, which led to the death of Biru Singh. 14. The version put forward by the defence that deceased Biru Singh had come with bad intentions to molest Bimla Devi, does not appeal to the mind. Deceased Biru Singh went only to request the appellant to turn down the volume of the stereo, but instead a quarrel errupted, which led to the death of Biru Singh. 14. The version put forward by the defence that deceased Biru Singh had come with bad intentions to molest Bimla Devi, does not appeal to the mind. If Biru Singh had gone to molest Bimla Devi, there was no need for him to do so at 11 Oclock in the night, when every member of the family both male and female, of the appellant were present in the house. He could have molested her during day time in the fields, or in the house of Bimla Devi in the day when the other family members were not present in the house. 15. Piari Devi, Bimla Devi and Mohan Lal were also challaned under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed against them for the murder of Biru Singh, but the trial Court in its wisdom, acquitted them of all the charges giving them the benefit of doubt. 16. We are in consonance with the argument put forward by the counsel for the appellant that the case falls within the parameters of Section 304 Part-II IPC. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant is modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC. Consequently, the sentence of the appellant is also modified from life imprisonment to RI for 10 years. Fine shall remain intact. Conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC shall remain intact. Sentences shall run concurrently. 17. With the above modification of conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed.