Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 423 (PNJ)

Shiv Chand v. State Of Punjab

2008-02-15

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SHAM SUNDER

body2008
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2002 decided on 8.8.2003. By the impugned judgment, the appellants Shiv Chand and Maya have been held guilty of having committed the murder of Indira Wati punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order passed on the same date the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. It was also ordered that out of the fine (if recovered) an amount of Rs. 8000/- would be paid to the child of deceased Indira Wati. 2. The prosecution version of the incident is based on the complaint made by Mohinder Kumar PW 2 on 24.12.2001 at 7.05 P.M. to ASI Pavittar Singh PW 4 at the Civil Hospital Ludhiana. According to the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 he had five brothers and one sister. Indira Wati wife of the accused Shiv Chand was his sister. Shiv Chand was originally a resident of Rasulpur Nandla,Police Station Raunipur in District Azamgarh (Uttar Pradesh). However, for the last 16/17 years, he had been living at Mohalla Kot Mangal Singh, Ludhiana. The accused/appellant Shiv Chand and his sister Indira Wati were blessed with five children. Despite the fact that the accused/appellant Shiv Chand and his sister Indira Wati had been married for a long time, accused Shiv Chand had illicit relations with the accused Maya. It was also alleged that the accused Maya had been visiting accused Shiv Chand at his house for the last one year. On account of the relationship between accused/appellant Shiv Chand and accused/appellant Maya, there was bickering between accused Shiv Chand and his sister Indira Wati. Indira Wati used to oppose the accused Maya for visiting their house. As per the version in the complaint, the relationship between the accused Shiv Chand and accused Maya, had been disclosed to the complainant by his own sister Indira Wati. On 22.12.2001,the complainants sister Indira Wati was allegedly brought to the house of the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 at Yamunanagar from Ludhiana in an unconscious condition by the accused Shiv Chand. On 22.12.2001,the complainants sister Indira Wati was allegedly brought to the house of the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 at Yamunanagar from Ludhiana in an unconscious condition by the accused Shiv Chand. On inquiries made by the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2, he was informed by the accused Shiv Chand, that his wife Indira Wati had fallen from the roof due to which she had suffered injuries. The complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 alleged in his complaint to the police, that he got suspicious with the narration of the accused/appellant Shiv Chand, and accordingly, the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 and his other brother Panna Lal went to Ludhiana to find out the factual position. They made inquiries about the injuries suffered by her at the Mohalla where their sister Indira Wati was residing. The residents of the Mohalla as well as Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 informed them that on 20.12.2001 at about 12:00 noon/1:00 P.M. they had seen the accused/appellants Maya and Shiv Chand quarreling with Indira Wati on the roof of the house. The accused Maya was pushed by Indira Wati and, resultantly, Indira Wati had fallen down from the roof due to which she had suffered all the injuries on her hand and left shoulder besides four broken front teeth. According to the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 Indira Wati was taken back to Ludhiana in the same van in which she had been brought to Yamunanagar, and where she was admitted to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, for treatment. The complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 in his complaint dated 24.12.2001 suggested that appropriate proceedings against the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya be initiated in accordance with law. On the basis of the aforestated statement made by Mohinder Kumar PW 2 to ASI Pavittar Singh PW 4 on 24.12.2001, First Information Report bearing No. 19 was registered at Police Station Shimlapuri in Police District Ludhiana at 7.05 P.M. on 24.12.2001. When Indira Wati was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 23.12.2001 a medico legal report was prepared by Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 1 which disclosed the following injuries on her person: 1. Diffused swelling on the right side of head advised X-ray. Referred to surgical specialist. 2. Complaint of pain on the left shoulder with bluish discolouration and immoveability. Advised X-ray. 3. Upper front four teeth were missing. Referred to dental surgeon for opinion. 3. S.K. Sharma PW 1 which disclosed the following injuries on her person: 1. Diffused swelling on the right side of head advised X-ray. Referred to surgical specialist. 2. Complaint of pain on the left shoulder with bluish discolouration and immoveability. Advised X-ray. 3. Upper front four teeth were missing. Referred to dental surgeon for opinion. 3. Indira Wati died at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 26.12.2001. Dr. S.K. Sharma and Dr. Ashok Raswant conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Indira Wati on 26.12.2001 and found the following injuries on her person: 1. Upper four insicor missing. 2. Fracture of left clevical. 3. Diffused swelling right side of the head. 4. The post mortem report also revealed multiple fractures on the right side of the skull with haematoma in the cavity. According to the post mortem report the death of Indira Wati had been caused by head injuries suffered by her which were antimortem in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Although originally when the First information Report was recorded on 24.12.2001 it noticed the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the death of Indira Wati a First Information Report bearing No. 70 was registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana under Sections 302/325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On completion of investigation and other formalities, a challan was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on 27.3.2002. By an order dated 1.7.2002, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, concluded that a prima facie case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out against the accused/appellants. Since the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively trial by the Court of Session, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana by his order dated 1.7.2002, committed the case to the Court of Session. 6. On 26.7.2002, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, charged the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya for having committed the murder of Indira Wati punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were then confronted with the charge levelled against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is being summarized hereunder. The prosecution first of all, examined Dr. The accused were then confronted with the charge levelled against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is being summarized hereunder. The prosecution first of all, examined Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 1 who conducted the medico legal examination of Indira Wati when she was admitted to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 23.12.2001. He had also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Indira Wati on 26.12.2001. Details in this behalf have already been narrated above. During the course of his examination Dr. S.K. Sharma, PW 1 also opined that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have been suffered by her on account of a fall from the roof with the head downwards. The statement of the complainant Mohinder Kumar, was recorded as PW 2. He reiterated the factual position as had been narrated by him in his complaint dated 24.12.2001. During the course of his cross examination he acknowledged that there is a Civil Hospital at Yamunanagar and that qualified doctors are posted there. He also asserted that when his sister Indira Wati was brought to Yamunanagar, she had been taken to the Civil Hospital but she was refused admission at the Civil Hospital Yamunanagar with the suggestion that she should be taken to the place where the occurrence had taken place. According to the cross-examination of Mohinder Kumar PW 2 Indira Wati was taken from Yamunanagar to Ludhiana in the same van in which the accused/appellant Shiv Chand had brought her to Yamunanagar. As per the statement of Mohinder Kumar PW 2, they had started for Ludhiana from Yamunanagar on 22.12.2001 at about 3:00/3.30 P.M. and had reached Ludhiana at about 8 P.M. It was also asserted by Mohinder Kumar PW 2 in his cross examination, that the accused Shiv Chand had taken his sister Indira Wati to Christan Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, and then abandoned her stating that he had no money to pay for her treatment. He stated that his sister was then got admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 23.12.2001. Kulwinder Singh Saini was produced by the prosecution as PW3. He stated that his sister was then got admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 23.12.2001. Kulwinder Singh Saini was produced by the prosecution as PW3. In his statement, he asserted that at about noon time, he had noticed the accused/appellant Shiv Chand and Maya manhandling the deceased Indira Wati on the roof of their house. He also deposed that he had rushed towards their house and when he reached there he saw that both the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya had pushed Indira Wati down from the roof. According to his statement, when he reached the spot, a number of people had gathered there. As a consequence of the fall, according to Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3, Indira Wati had suffered head injuries and had also broken her teeth. She was unconscious at the time of the occurrence. He claimed to have lifted her and put her on a bed. Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 in his statement also asserted that on 24.12.2001 the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 and his brother Panna Lal (both brothers of Indira Wati) had come to meet him in the Mohalla and that he had told them all the facts which had been asserted by him as a witness. He denied the suggestion that the deceased Indira Wati had gone to Yamunanagar on 15.12.2001 and remained there till 20.12.2001. The statement of the Investigating Officer ASI Pavittar Singh was recorded as PW 4. In his statement he affirmed that he had recorded the complaint of Mohinder Kumar PW 2 on 24.12.2001. He also stated that during the course of his investigation he had recorded the statement of Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 on 25.12.2001. When he received the message of the death of Indira Wati on 26.12.2001, he had gone to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and had prepared the inquest report Ex.PH. The statement of Baljinder Singh Panesar was recorded as PW 5. According to his statement the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya had come to him on 28.12.2001. They had individually confessed that they had decided to eliminate Indira Wati and had accordingly pushed her from the roof on 20.12.2001, as a result of which she had suffered injuries on her head and other parts of the body eventually resulting in her death. They had individually confessed that they had decided to eliminate Indira Wati and had accordingly pushed her from the roof on 20.12.2001, as a result of which she had suffered injuries on her head and other parts of the body eventually resulting in her death. According to Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 they had approached him because he yielded influence in the area and also requested him to produce them before the police. As per the statement of Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5, he fecilitated the arrest of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya. Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 also denied the suggestion that Indira Wati had remained at Yamunanagar from 15.12.2001 to 20.12.2001. In fact, during his cross examination, he volunteered that he had seen Indira Wati in Ludhiana on the date of occurrence i.e. on 20.12.2001. The statement of SI Tehal Singh was recorded as PW 6. According to the statement of S.I. Tehal Singh PW 6, he was handed over the investigation of the case on 26.12.2001. He acknowledged that the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya were produced before him by Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 whereupon he had arrested them. In his cross examination, he acknowledged that he had not got the arrest memo of the accused/appellants attested from Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5. Having recorded the aforesaid statements, the prosecution evidence was closed. 7. The statements of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya were then recorded on 4.3.2003, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The incriminating evidence appearing on the record was put to the accused/appellants and they denied the same. In his statement the accused/appellant Shiv Chand inter alia stated: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated by Mohinder Kumar and his family members in the present case. I have not committed any offence. My wife suffered accidental injuries due to fall on the ground in her parental house at Yamunanagar. The complainant and his family members in connivance with the police and putting forward false witnesses registered a false case and implicated me falsely in the present case. I have no relations with accused Maya and the story regarding alleged relations is concocted & false. 8. Whereas in her defence the accused/appellant Maya, inter alia, stated: I am innocent. The complainant and his family members in connivance with the police and putting forward false witnesses registered a false case and implicated me falsely in the present case. I have no relations with accused Maya and the story regarding alleged relations is concocted & false. 8. Whereas in her defence the accused/appellant Maya, inter alia, stated: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case.I have not committed any offence I have no relations with accused Shiv Chand. The story regarding alleged relations is totally false. I am married lady and my husband is alive. 9. In their defence, the accused/appellants produced Shiv Kumari i.e. the mother of the accused/appellant Maya as DW1. In her statement Shiv Kumari DW1 deposed that the accused/appellant Maya was married to Mohinder Kumar and out of their wedlock she had a son and a daughter. She also asserted that her daughter Maya has no concern with Shiv Chand, and that she has never gone to the house of Shiv Chand, and that the police had falsely implicated her. The accused/appellant then produced Mohan Singh as DW2. Mohan Singh DW2 deposed that although he was not related to the accused/appellant Shiv Chand, he knew the accused/appellant Shiv Chand and the deceased Indira Wati. He also stated that the parents of Indira Wati reside at Yamunanagar. He affirmed that Indira Wati used to go to Yamunanagar of and on to meet her parents. He also stated that on the date of the alleged occurrence i.e. on 20.12.2001 Indira Wati had gone to Yamunanagar. He also deposed that Indira Wati had suffered injuries on her person at Yamunanagar, whereafter, she was brought by her brother to Ludhiana to get her admitted at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Having produced the aforesaid two witnesses on their behalf, the accused/appellants closed their defence evidence. 10. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, delivered the judgment in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2002 on 8.8.2003. Shiv Chand and Maya were held guilty for the murder of Indira Wati under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day i.e. on 8.8.2003 after having heard the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya on the question of sentence, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day i.e. on 8.8.2003 after having heard the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya on the question of sentence, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years each. It was further ordered that an amount of Rs. 8000/- out of the fine (if recovered) would be paid to the child of the deceased Indira Wati. 11. A perusal of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, reveal that while convicting the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya, reliance was placed on the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution through the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 who was brother of the deceased Indira Wati, as well as, through the statements of Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 and Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5. Insofar as Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 is concerned, he was an eye witness to the occurrence who had seen the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya quarreling with the deceased Indira Wati on the roof of their house. He deposed that he had seen the accused/appellants pushing Indira Wati and as a result thereof she had fallen down from the roof. So far as Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 is concerned, he affirmed that the accused/appellants Sheo Chand and Maya had made an extra judicial confession to him to the effect that they had decided to eliminate Indira Wati and had accordingly pushed her from the roof of the house of Shiv Chand on 20.12.2001 as a result whereof she had died. He also deposed that the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya requested him to produce them before the police. Accordingly, as per the statement of Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 he felicitated the arrest of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya. Besides the aforesaid ocular evidence, the trial Court took into consideration the medico legal report prepared by Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 1 on 24.12.2001, as also, the post mortem report dated 26.12.2001 which corroborated the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution so far as the injuries suffered by the deceased Indira Wati are concerned. Besides the aforesaid ocular evidence, the trial Court took into consideration the medico legal report prepared by Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 1 on 24.12.2001, as also, the post mortem report dated 26.12.2001 which corroborated the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution so far as the injuries suffered by the deceased Indira Wati are concerned. In order to repudiate the conclusions drawn by the trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 8.8.2003, as also in order to demonstrate that the evidence relied upon by the trial Court in recording the conviction of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya was not creditworthy, learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya first of all contended that the entire version of the incident has been concocted by the prosecution. In this behalf, it is submitted that there was ample time with the prosecution to concoct their version on account of the fact that although the alleged occurrence had taken place between 12:00 noon and 1:00 P.M, on 20.12.2001, the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 recorded his statement before the police for the first time on 24.12.2001 at 7.05 P.M, whereupon, the First Information Report bearing No. 70 was registered at Police Station Shimlapuri Ludhiana on 24.12.2001. 12. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya that the incident under reference never took place as the deceased Indira Wati was at Yamunanagar on 20.12.2001, and therefore, the allegation that the occurrence had taken place at Ludhiana on 20.12.2001 was not acceptable. In this behalf, it is pointed out that Indira Wati had departed for Yamunanagar on 15.12.2001 and that she had remained there till she was brought by her brother i.e. the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 to Ludhiana for treatment. It is also pointed out that a suggestion was put to each of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that Indira Wati was at Yamunanagar during the period from 15.12.2001 to 20.12.2001. It was therefore, contended that the prosecution had to discharge the onerous responsibility of showing the presence of the deceased Indira Wati at Ludhiana on 20.12.2001. According to learned Counsel, there is no authentic evidence on the record of this case to show that the deceased Indira Wati was at Ludhiana on the date of occurrence i.e. on 20.12.2001. 13. It was therefore, contended that the prosecution had to discharge the onerous responsibility of showing the presence of the deceased Indira Wati at Ludhiana on 20.12.2001. According to learned Counsel, there is no authentic evidence on the record of this case to show that the deceased Indira Wati was at Ludhiana on the date of occurrence i.e. on 20.12.2001. 13. Insofar as the delayed FIR is concerned, the same would stand automatically justified if the occurrence had taken place at Ludhiana on 20.12.2001, and if, the prosecution version that Indira Wati was taken from Ludhiana to Yamunanagar on 22.12.2001, was correct, because in the aforesaid eventuality the claimant would have come to know about the occurrence only when he would come into contact with Indira Wati, or any other person, who had narrated the factual position to him. Although Indira Wati according to the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 was taken to Yamunanagar on 22.12.2001 yet on account of the fact that she was unconscious he could not determine from her the cause of the injuries suffered by her. It is only when he brought Indira Wati back to Ludhiana for treatment and he met the residents of the locality including Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 that he came to know how she had suffered the injuries. It is thereupon that without losing any further time he had made a complaint to ASI Pavittar Singh PW 4 on 24.12.2001, narrating to him the sequence of facts as they had been brought to his notice. If the aforesaid sequence of facts, are held to be correct then there is obviously no delay in the registration of the First Information Report. 14. On the issue as to whether Indira Wati was at Ludhiana on the date of the occurrence on 20.12.2001, the prosecution has produced two independent witesses namely, Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 who is an eye witness to the occurrence and has actually seen the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya quarreling with Indira Wati on the roof of the house of Shiv Chand on 20.12.2001. According to his deposition he had seen the accused/appellant Maya pushing Indira Wati, which resulted in her having fallen down from the roof. There is another independent witness who has substantiated the aforesaid factual position i.e.Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5. According to his deposition he had seen the accused/appellant Maya pushing Indira Wati, which resulted in her having fallen down from the roof. There is another independent witness who has substantiated the aforesaid factual position i.e.Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5. In response to a suggestion put to him to the effect that the deceased Indira Wati had remained at Yamunanagar from 15.12.2001 to 23.12.2001, he categorically stated that he had seen Indira Wati on the date of the occurrence i.e. 20.12.2001 at Ludhiana. Insofar as, Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 is concerned, he is an independent person besides being the "mohalla pradhan" of the locality in which the accused Shiv Chand had his residence while insofar as Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 is concerned, he is a person of the confidence of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya. Not only did the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya make an extra judicial confession to Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 they also required him to produce them before the police, and accordingly, Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 felicitated the arrest of the accused/appellants by handing them over to SI Tehal Singh PW 6 i.e. the investigating officer of the case. There is no reason forthcoming on the basis of which the statements of Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3 or Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 could be subject of suspicion. Not only that both of them are respectables of the area where the house of accused/appellant Shiv Chand is located, they are neither inimical to the accused/appellants nor in any way associated/connected to the complainant party. There is also evidence on record establishing that the deceased Indira Wati was admitted to the Civil Hospital Ludhiana on 23.12.2001, and also that the complainant had made inquiries from the "mohalla", as to how, Indira Wati had suffered the injuries on her body. There is also evidence on record establishing that the deceased Indira Wati was admitted to the Civil Hospital Ludhiana on 23.12.2001, and also that the complainant had made inquiries from the "mohalla", as to how, Indira Wati had suffered the injuries on her body. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that Indira Wati was very much at Ludhiana on 20.12.2001, and furthermore, that since the factum of the deceased Indira Wati having suffered injuries came to the notice of the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 for the first time on 22.12.2001, and the manner in which she had suffered the said injuries came to his notice for the first time when the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 having brought his sister back to Ludhiana from Yamunanagar admitted her at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 23.12.2001 and started making inquiries about the manner in which his sister Indira Wati had suffered the injuries on her person. And only after coming to know about the same he reported the matter to the police. We are accordingly of the view that the registration of the FIR cannot be considered to be delayed, as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya. 15. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Shiv Chad and Maya is that there was no basis whatsoever for the trial Court to record that the motive for the accused/appellants to commit the crime under reference was the illicit relationship between them. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the accused/appellants has invited the Courts attention to the statement of Shiv Kumari DW1 i.e. the mother of the accused/appellant Maya who while recording her statement asserted that Maya was married to Mohinder Kumar and that two children were born out of her wedlock with Mohinder Kumar. She also asserted that her daughter had no concern with the accused/appellant Shiv Chand, nor she had any illicit relations with him. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view, that the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya have overlooked the evidence produced by the prosecution to substantiate the motive for the accused for having committed the crime under reference. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view, that the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya have overlooked the evidence produced by the prosecution to substantiate the motive for the accused for having committed the crime under reference. The statement of the brother of the deceased Indira Wati i.e., the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 in no uncertain terms notices the fact that Indira Wati during her life time had informed them about the illicit relationship of her husband Shiv Chand and the accused/appellant Maya. The statement of Mohinder Kumar PW 2 also records that there were fights and bickering between the accused Shiv Chand and his sister Indira Wati on account of the relationship between Shiv Chand and Maya. In addition to the statement of Mohinder Kumar PW 2, there are two other independent witnesses namely, Kulwinder Singh Saini Pw3 and Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 clearly asserting that Shiv Chand had illicit relations with Maya. The statement of Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 goes a step further by noticing that on 28.12.2001 the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya had come to him and had stated that they had made up their mind to live together for which they had decided to eliminate Indira Wati, and that, for the aforesaid purpose they had thrown Indira Wati from the roof top of the house on 20.12.2001. Neither of these two witnesses are shown to be inimical to either of the accused. There is no reason for them to make a false statement in Court against the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya. They are also respectables of the locality where Shiv Chand resides at Ludhiana. In our view, the trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the motive for the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya for having committed the murder of Indira Wati was the illicit relationship between the accused. 16. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellants has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in Hari Kant v. State of Haryana 1999(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 94 and invited our attention to the following observations in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment: 6. 16. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellants has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in Hari Kant v. State of Haryana 1999(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 94 and invited our attention to the following observations in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment: 6. ...The prosecution in its endeavour to secure conviction against the appellants relies on the joint confession made by the appellants before Jogi Ram PW-2 and Kunj Bihari PW-3 as also on the statement of Vidyarthi PW-4, who is stated to have last seen the child of Sham Bihari. No motive has been alleged or proved against the appellants. It may also be mentioned that the police could not trace the dead body of Aspatali son of Sham Behari. The question that arises in the present case is as to whether the prosecution can secure conviction on the basis of joint extra judicial confession made by the appellants and the evidence of child having been last seen by PW Vidyarthi with the appellants. After giving our anxious thoughts to the statements made by Jogi Ram PW-2, Kunj Bihari PW-3 and Vidyarthi PW-4 and after hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that chain of circumstances in this case is not complete so as to return a finding that the appellants alone were responsible for causing the death of Aspatali son of Sham Bihari. 17. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya submits that the extra judicial confession allegedly made to Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 could not be taken into consideration for the conviction of the accused/appellants. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya noticed in the foregoing paragraph. In the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel, referred to hereinabove, there was only circumstantial evidence on the basis of which the conviction of the accused/appellants had been sought, namely, the last seen evidence and the extra judicial confession. The Court arrived at the conclusion that the chain of circumstances in the case was not complete so as to return a finding of guilt in the said case. That is not so, so far as the present case is concerned. Herein, there is an eye witness to the occurrence under reference namely Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3. The Court arrived at the conclusion that the chain of circumstances in the case was not complete so as to return a finding of guilt in the said case. That is not so, so far as the present case is concerned. Herein, there is an eye witness to the occurrence under reference namely Kulwinder Singh Saini PW3. The statement of the complainant Mohinder Kumar PW 2 on the issue of motive is corroborated by the statement of Kulwinder Singh Saini PW 3, as well as, by the statement of Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5. It is not as if Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 is a person to whom parties similarly situated as the accused/appellants would not have gone. Baljinder Singh Panesar-PW 5 is treated as a Pardhan of the Mohalla. He also holds the office of Vice President in the All India Sikh Students Federation. He claims to be engaged in helping people living in the Mohalla, to get their grievances settled from senior officers of the Civil Administration, as well as, from police officials. In fact he was requested by the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya to produce them before the police, and as a matter of fact, he felicitated their arrest in the present case. The extra judicial confession made by the accused to Baljinder Singh Panesar PW 5 is supportive of the other evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya. The instant case is not similar to the controversy which had come up for consideration in Hari Kants case (supra) wherein conviction was entirely sought on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there being no eye witness to the occurrence. There is another significant difference in this case. The two concerned witnesses in the judgment relied upon were President and Secretary of INTUC who were known to the father of the deceased, whereas, the aforesaid two witnesses were not known to the accused, and as such, the Apex Court was of the view that reliance on the statements of such witnesses would be improper as it could not be believed that the accused would have gone to them for making a confession. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants. In a similar fashion and for the same objective, as has been noticed on behalf of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants in the foregoing paragraph, reliance has also been place on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT of Chandigarh) 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 48. For the same reasons, as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sunny Kapoors case (supra) is clearly inapplicable to the controversy of the present case on account of the fact that the entire case in the judgment relied upon was based on an extra judicial confession made by an accused person to a social worker not known to the accused therein, and that, there was no eye witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, for the same reasons, as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sunny Kapoors case (supra) is inapplicable to the controversy in hand. 18. Having concluded his submissions on the aforesaid issues on the merits of the case based on the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned Counsel for the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya raised a purely legal issue namely, that the accused/appellants Shiv Chad and Maya have wrongly been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, conviction of the accused/appellants, if at all, ought to have been under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. For the aforesaid proposition, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) 1994 Supp (1)SCC 462. The facts of the case relied upon by the learned Counsel have been narrated in paragraph 6 and the conclusion thereupon has been drawn in paragraphs 7 and 8. It is, therefore, appropriate for us to extract paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the judgment in Harish Kumars case (supra). The same is accordingly extracted hereunder: 6. The next question is what is the offence the appellant had committed. We have seen the evidence. Mr. It is, therefore, appropriate for us to extract paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the judgment in Harish Kumars case (supra). The same is accordingly extracted hereunder: 6. The next question is what is the offence the appellant had committed. We have seen the evidence. Mr. V.C. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the State contended that the appellant came one hour after the initial exchange of words; he came with the sharp edged weapon and without any provocation he inflicted the injury on the deceased when he was held back by the acquitted co-accused That would show that there is an intention to kill him, and as per the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death coming within clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. It is no doubt true, as rightly contended, that if read in isolation by itself the offence may be murder, but when closely scrutinised the evidence in this behalf, we find that the evidence cannot conclusively show that the offence an be brought within clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. 7. We have seen the nature of the injuries and also the time gap between the time of infliction of the injury till the date of death which was two days after the injury was inflicted. We have no sufficient material as to the nature of treatment given to the deceased during those two days. 8. Under these circumstances, though the injury had resulted in the death of the deceased, we cannot conclusively say that it was sufficient to cause his death. Accordingly, the offence would be one falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC. In the result, we set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and convict the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent and the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 19. The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are clearly separate and distinct from the present case. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent and the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 19. The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are clearly separate and distinct from the present case. In the instant case the accused/appellants Shiv Chand and Maya are stated to be having an illicit relationship, and it was therefore, their motive to get rid off the deceased Indira Wati, who is none other than the wife of the accused/appellant Shiv Chand. On the relevant date consequent upon a quarrel between the rival parties namely, Shiv Chand and Maya on the one side and Indira Wati on the other, they pushed Indira Wati from the first floor whereupon, she fell down on the ground floor. Resultantly Indira Wati suffered severe injuries on her skull the examination whereof depicted multiple fractures of the skull, four of her upper teeth had also broken, and besides the aforesaid, there was a fracture on her left clavicle. It is, therefore, apparent that it is not only that the accused have committed the crime but also the same was committed with the intention to get rid off Indira Wati so that they could continue their illicit relationship unhindered. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it would not be possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should be converted to one falling under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 20. No other submission besides those noticed hereinabove was advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.