Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 776 (PNJ)

Inder Pal v. State Of Punjab

2007-03-30

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 6.4.1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby he convicted Inder Pal son of Puran Chand under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo RI for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.3.1991 at 1.30 p.m. Teg Pal had gone to the shop of Inder Pal. The shop is in the neighbourhood of the house of Geeta Devi. Geeta Devi heard a noise came out of her house and found Tejpal being beaten by appellant Inder Pal. Appellant was accusing Tejpal of deteriorating his business. In the meanwhile, Kailash Rani also reached the slop of Inder Pal. Both Geeta Devi and Kailash Rani rescued Tejpal. Tejpal told Geeta Devi and his mother Kailash Rani that he would prefer to die than live such a life. Tejpal then went outside and returned after half an hour. Froth was coming out of his mouth. Tejpal had taken poison which was used to kill rats. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Constable Harjit Singh PW-1, Constable Rajinder Singh PW-2, Gopal Singh PW-3 Geeta Devi PW-4, Kailash Rani PW-5, Dr. Gurmanjit Singh PW-6, HC Balwant Singh PW-7, Raj Kumar PW-8, SI Kabul Singh PW-9, Atma Ram PW-10, SI Rajinder Singh PW-11 and Jagdish Kumar PW-12. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the statement Ex. DB of Geeta Devi is contradictory to what she has stated in Court. In her statement before the police, she has stated that she went to the shop of appellant. On seeing him being beaten he was rescued. Tejpal went to the Bazar and came after about half an hour. In Court Geeta Devi stated, that she went to the shop of Inder Pal and found her brother Tejpal in a semi-conscious condition. She stated that Tejpal told her that appellant had administered some poison to him. She further stated that appellant had beaten Tejpal as he suspected that Tejpal had illicit relations with his wife. Geeta Devi when confronted with her statement Ex. DB, denied that she made statement Ex. DB before the police. Similarly, the other witnesses have also contradicted their statements. 5. She further stated that appellant had beaten Tejpal as he suspected that Tejpal had illicit relations with his wife. Geeta Devi when confronted with her statement Ex. DB, denied that she made statement Ex. DB before the police. Similarly, the other witnesses have also contradicted their statements. 5. Learned counsel for the State has argued that witnesses have not contradicted their statements with their statements given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In fact, Geeta Devi, Kailash Rani PW-5, Raj Kumar PW-8 and Jagdish PW-12 have corroborated each other inter-se and also get corroboration from the medical evidence. There is no delay of lodging of the F.I.R. Complainant would not have falsely implicated his own near relative and let the actual culprit go scot free. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record with their assistance. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case was not registered on 8.3.1991, but on 9.3.1991, does not cut much ice. The inquest report and the statement of Atma Ram PW-10 are consistent and nothing has come out from the prosecution evidence that the case, was registered on 9.3.1991. The inquest report was prepared on 8.3.1991. The statement of Geeta Devi and Kailash Rani PW-5, Raj Kumar PW-8 and Jagdish PW-12 are consistent. They inspire confidence and they corroborate each other inter-se. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Court. Conviction of the appellant is maintained. 9. Sentence of the appellant seems to be on the higher side. Occurrence is of the year 1991 and appeal is of the year 1994. The sword of conviction has been hanging over the head of the appellant for the last 16 years. This itself is a punishment. Sentence of appellant is modified to the extent already undergone. With the above modification of sentence, appeal is dismissed.