Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1401 (PNJ)

Manga Ram v. State Of Punjab

2008-08-19

JORA SINGH, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2008
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 10.8.1999 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he convicted Manga Ram son of Harnama and his mother Channo wife of Harnama under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He sentenced them to undergo iife imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case is unfolded, by statement Ex.PF of Baldev made to SI Chhaju Ram at police station Sultanpur Lodhi. 3. Baldev stated, that he is a resident of Village Farid Sarai and does labour work. Both his parents were alive. About 2 years and 3 months before the occurrence, marriage of her sister Kulwant Kaur was solemnized with Manga Ram son of Harnama. Differences between KulwantKaur and Manga Ram developed, as he suspected the character of his wife. Chano also taunted Kulwant Kaur about her character. In the intervening period, a son was born to Kulwant Kaur, whose age was 1 year and 3 months at the time of occurrence. His sister was again pregnant. About one month back his sister came to their village and stayed there for 10-12 days. Manga Ram came, he wanted to take Kulwant Kaur back to his house. Tarsem Lal, member panchayat was called. Tarsem Lal asked Manga Ram as to why he beat Kulwant Kaur. Manga Ram stated, that she was a woman of bad character and had also a bad character before her marriage. Complainant, his father Puran Chand and Tarsem Lal assured Manga Ram that the character of Kulwant Kaur was good. Thereafter Kulwant Kaur was sent with Manga Ram. On 29.5.1998, Baldev went to Village Jabo Suchar to meet Kulwant Kaur. Kulwant Kaur told him, that Manga Ram was maltreating her and her mother-in-law Chano taunted her. She felt danger to her life also. Baldev came back and told the whole story to his father Puran Chand and Tarsem Lal, member panchayat. At about 6.00 p.m., Manga Ram came to their Village Farid Sarai. Bladev was present in the house. Manga Ram told him, that he had to go to Sultanpur and Baldev should accompany him. Baldev borrowed the scooter of Mohinder Singh and both went to Sultanpur. They went to the Railway Station. Manga Ram went inside. At about 6.00 p.m., Manga Ram came to their Village Farid Sarai. Bladev was present in the house. Manga Ram told him, that he had to go to Sultanpur and Baldev should accompany him. Baldev borrowed the scooter of Mohinder Singh and both went to Sultanpur. They went to the Railway Station. Manga Ram went inside. He returned back and said that now they should go to Jabo Suchar. Baldev drove the scooter and Manga Ram sat on the pillion seat. When they approached Jabo Suchar, Manga Ram said, that Kulwant Kaur was angry with him and she had left the house at noon. Baldev then asked as to why he did not disclose this to him earlier and suspected that there was some foul play. Manga Ram then said, that let us search for Kulwant Kaur in Village Khurdan, where Jagiro, the sister of Manga Ram, met them. Jagiro said, that Kulwant Kaur had not come there. Then they returned back. Both Baldev and Manga Ram then went to Village Jabo Suchar. Manga Ram got down from his scooter and stated, that they would search for her tomorrow. Baldev after dropping Manga Ram, went towards Sultanpur from Jabo Suchar. 4. On the way he thought, that Kulwant Kaur may have reached her house. He went back to his sisters house, but saw that his brother-in-law Manga Ram and his mother Chano were placing his sister Kulwant Kaur on a cot, which was lying in the Courtyard. Baldev came forward to see what had happened to his sister. He saw his sister had died. Manga Ram and his mother Chano then quietly slipped away from there. Baldev saw an injury on the right side of the throat of his sister and it appeared to be swollen .He raised an alarm. Neighboured collected there. Thereafter Baldev left for his Village Farid Sarai to give the information to his parents and other relatives. On reaching his house, he told his parents about the death of Kulwant Kaur. He gave this information to Mohinder Singh, ex-Member Panchayat. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PW9B was recorded on 1.6.1998 at 2.15 a.m. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 1.6.1998 at 4.30 a.m. 5. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Ajit Singh PW1, Constable Paramjit Singh PW2, C-I Sukhdev Singh PW3, Dr. He gave this information to Mohinder Singh, ex-Member Panchayat. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PW9B was recorded on 1.6.1998 at 2.15 a.m. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 1.6.1998 at 4.30 a.m. 5. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Ajit Singh PW1, Constable Paramjit Singh PW2, C-I Sukhdev Singh PW3, Dr. Baljit Singh PW4, Baldev PW5, Tarsem Lal PW6, Pritam Singh PW7, Sukhwinder Singh PW8 and SI Chhajju Ram PW9. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that there was no struggle. Dr. Baljit Singh PW4, who performed the post-mortem and prepared the post mortem report, on the dead body of Kulwant Kaur has stated, that deceased was wearing glass bangles. There were ligature marks on her neck. If somebody had tried to strangulate her, there would have been a struggle and at least the bangles would have broken. It shows, that Kulwant Kaur committed suicide by hanging herself in the room. 7. Sukhwinder Singh P W8 has stated, that he saw the body being brought out at 2.30/3.00 p.m. in the Courtyard, but Baldev PW5 has stated, that he saw the body being brought out at 6.00 p.m. This is a material contradiction in the statements of these two witnesses. This itself goes to the root of the case and shows, that both these witnesses i.e. Baldev PW5 and Sukhwinder Singh PW8 were not present when the body was being taken out. If they had seen the body being taken out, they would have immediately informed the police and not gone back to their Village Farid Sarai. Baldev PW5, the real brother of the deceased, would not have left the dead body unguarded. 8. The search for Kulwant Kaur, as stated by Baldev PW5, is also a concocted story built up by the prosecution, only to coverthe lapses in recording of the FIR. Appellant Chano at the time of occurrence was 66 years. As per the post mortem report, she was moderately built. She could not have helped her son in strangulating the deceased. 9. Pritam Singh, ex-Sarpanch PW5 has not fully supported the prosecution case. He is a truthful witness. He has clearly stated, that Chano, the mother-in-law of the deceased, was not involved in the commission of the offence. 10. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR. 9. Pritam Singh, ex-Sarpanch PW5 has not fully supported the prosecution case. He is a truthful witness. He has clearly stated, that Chano, the mother-in-law of the deceased, was not involved in the commission of the offence. 10. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR. Appellants Manga Ram and Chano were not happy with the conduct of deceased Kulwant Kaur and thus put her to death. Both witnesses Baldev PW5 and Sukhwinder Singh PW8, along with Tarsem Lal PW6 and Pritam Singh, ex-Sarpanch PW7 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses have corroborated each other. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 12. As per Dr. Baljit Singh PW4, who conducted the post-mortem on 1.6.1998 at 1.00 p.m. has stated, that deceased Kulwant Kaur was moderately built and well nourished. Her height was 5 feet 2 inches. He detected the following injuries on her person: "1. A ligature mark was present on around the neck 1.5 cm in breadth in the upper part of neck above the thyroid cartilage. The ligature mark startsjust below the right angle of mandible extending to left angle of mandible, encircling the front of neck and extending to left mastoid process and encircling the back of neck on left half. The base of mark was pale with ecchymosed margins. On dissecting the mark there was extravasation of blood in the subcutaneous tissue. Vessels underlying the mark were slightly lacerated. Cyanosis was present. 2. An abrasion 3x2 cm was present on the rim of right side of mandible 4 cm from the right angle of mandible". 13. He has opined, that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. He has further opined, that deceased was wearing glass bangles in both the arms. The bangles being intact, it is clear, that no struggle had taken place before the death of Kulwant Kaur. If she had been forcibly hanged, there would have been tell-tale signs of a struggle. 14. Both Baldev PW5 and Sukhwinder Singh PW8 have not corroborated each other qua the time when they reached the house of the deceased. The bangles being intact, it is clear, that no struggle had taken place before the death of Kulwant Kaur. If she had been forcibly hanged, there would have been tell-tale signs of a struggle. 14. Both Baldev PW5 and Sukhwinder Singh PW8 have not corroborated each other qua the time when they reached the house of the deceased. Baldev PW5 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that he went to the house of the deceased in the evening on 31.5.1998 and saw, that both appellants were taking out the dead body of Kulwant Kaur from a room and placing it on a cot in the Courtyard of their house. It was about 6.00 p.m. Sukhwinder Singh PW8 has not corroborated this version put forward by Baldev PW5. Sukhwinder Singh PW8 has stated, that the time was 2.30/3.00 p.m. He saw appellant Manga Ram lifting the body of his wife Kulwant Kaur from a room and placing it in the Courtyard. He has further stated, that at that time he did not see appellant Chano with Manga Ram. Nobody was there from the village, though Baldev PW5 has stated, that a number of persons collected from the village. Baldev PW5 has further stated, that it was Sukhwinder Singh PW8, who had told him, that appellants were lifting the body of Kulwant Kaur and he thought, that it was because she was pregnant. This is a material contradiction which goes at the root of the case. 15. Baldev PW5 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that his sister Kulwant Kaur was being maltreated and mistreated, as appellant Manga Ram had said, that she was a woman of loose character. Similarly, Tarsem Lal PW6 has stated, that Kulwant Kaur was being maltreated. Pritam Singh, ex-Sarpanch PW7 was declared hostile, as he was not telling the truth. 16. From the above observations and discussion, it comes out that deceased Kulwant Kaur committed suicide by hanging herself. Dr. Baijit Singh PW4 has stated, that there were ligature marks on the upper part of her neck above the thyroid cartilage. Kuiwant Kaur was maltreated by appellant Manga Ram. It has come in evidence and in the statements of Baldev PW5, Sukhwinder Singh PW8 and Tarsem Lal PW6, that it was Manga Ram, who always called her a woman of loose character. Kuiwant Kaur was maltreated by appellant Manga Ram. It has come in evidence and in the statements of Baldev PW5, Sukhwinder Singh PW8 and Tarsem Lal PW6, that it was Manga Ram, who always called her a woman of loose character. Nowhere has it come out in the statements of these witnesses, that appellant Chano ever said, that she was a woman of loose character. We cannot overlook this fact, that deceased had a male child in her womb. Chano would have been the grand mother of this child, if he was born and Manga Ram would have been the father. They both never would have liked to finish this child. It was in frustration, that Kulwant Kaur after being maltreated and being called a woman of loose character by appellant Manga Ram, committed suicide by hanging hereself. Appellant Manga Ram is the one, who is responsible for abetting Kulwant Kaur to commit suicide. Appellant Chano did not play any role. She has been falsely implicated. 17. Appellant Chano w/o Harnama is acquitted of all the charges. Her appeal is allowed. Her conviction and sentence is set aside. If in custody, she be set free forthwith. 18. Conviction of Manga Ram is converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 306 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. He is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for two months. 19. With the above discussion and observations, appeal qua appellant Chano is allowed and appeal qua appellant Manga-Ram dismissed.