Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 892 (PNJ)

Manbhari v. State Of Haryana

2008-04-21

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2008
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The appellants Manbhari, Kuldeep, Balwant Singh and Pritam Singh challenge their conviction for the murder of Suraj Kaur on 9.10.1996 at 8.30 A.M. in village Tiwala, District Bhiwani. PW-5 Rajwanti, complainant, daughter of the deceased, has filed revision petition for enhancement of sentence. Both the appeal and the revision petition will stand disposed of by this order. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, deceased Suraj Kaur had gone to her field to harvest the crop of millet. Her husband PW-6 Des Ram also followed her with the buffaloes. PW-5 Rajwanti went to the fields at about 8.30 A.M. In her sight accused Balwant Singh, who was armed with Kulhari (Axe) and his sons Kuldeep Singh and Pritam Singh, who were armed with sticks assaulted Suraj Kaur. Manbhari wife of Balwant raised a lalkara asking the co-accused to teach a lesson to her for sharing the water of their tubewell. Balwant Singh inflicted axe blow on the back side of the head of Suraj Kaur. Pritam Singh gave a stick blow on the right temple near the ear of Suraj Kaur. Kuldeep Singh gave stick blow on the right arm of Suraj Kaur. Pritam Singh gave another blow on the right foot of Suraj Kaur. After she fell down, Pritam Singh and Kuldeep gave stick blows on the waist of Suraj Kaur. Seeing PW-6 Des Ram coming, the accused ran away with their respective weapons. Suraj Kaur died on the spot. The cause of occurrence was dispute on sharing of tubewell water and raising of boundary of the fields. PW-5 Rajwanti went to lodge the report alongwith her father. Her statement was recorded at the Police Station by PW-9 SI Amar Singh at 12.25 P.M., which led to the registration of FIR. PW-9 SI Amar Singh went to the spot and conducted inquest proceedings and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He collected blood stained soil, prepared site plan and took other steps for investigation. He arrested Manbhari on 10.10.1996, Balwant Singh and Kuldeep on 11.10.1996. He recovered Kulhari Ex. P-5 at the instance of Balwant Singh, stick Ex. P-6 at the instance of Kuldeep. He arrested Pritam Singh on 14.10.1996 and recovered stick Ex. P-7 at his instance. After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. 3. He arrested Manbhari on 10.10.1996, Balwant Singh and Kuldeep on 11.10.1996. He recovered Kulhari Ex. P-5 at the instance of Balwant Singh, stick Ex. P-6 at the instance of Kuldeep. He arrested Pritam Singh on 14.10.1996 and recovered stick Ex. P-7 at his instance. After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. 3. The prosecution examined PW-1 Bani Singh, Draftsman, PW-2 Constable Rajpal, Photographer, PW-3 Anand Parkash, recovery witness of the Kulhari, PW-4 Chain Sukh, recovery witness of stick Ex. P-7, PW-5 Rajwanti, PW-6 Des Ram, PW-7 Constable Rambir, PW-8 Dr. D.S. Nandal and PW-9 SI Amar Singh. 4. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. They denied that there was any dispute about the boundary of the field or sharing of the tubewell water. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be proved and convicted and sentenced the accused. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses, which rendered doubt about their presence. PW-5 Rajwanti deposed in her statement that only Balwant Singh armed with Axe committed murder of Suraj Kaur. In subsequent part she implicated the other accused. There was delay of four hours in reaching of the special report to the area Magistrate at a distance of one Kilometer. On account of this, there could be exaggeration of number of accused involved. The medical evidence is that there were only four injuries, which contradicted the ocular account that there were 12 to 15 blows. Accused Kuldeep could at best be held responsible for causing fracture with the stick on non vital part of the body and accused Pritam Singh was attributed two blows- one on vital part of the body with Danda and other on non vital part of the body and he could at best be held liable under Section 304 II IPC. Balwant Singh could be held liable under Section 304 1 IPC for having caused single blow which proved fatal. 8. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to the medical evidence furnished by PW-8 Dr. D.S. Nandal, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Suraj Kaur on 9.10.1996 at 5.45 P.M. He observed following injuries :- "1. Balwant Singh could be held liable under Section 304 1 IPC for having caused single blow which proved fatal. 8. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to the medical evidence furnished by PW-8 Dr. D.S. Nandal, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Suraj Kaur on 9.10.1996 at 5.45 P.M. He observed following injuries :- "1. There was an incised wound of 7.5 cm X 1.5 cm X 8 cm over the occipital area of skull. Brain matter was 1 acerated and damaged, after cutting through. 2. There was alocerated wound of 2.5 cm x 2 2 cm over the right matoid area. Bone was fractured and brain matter was locerated. 3. The right upper arm was fractured in the upper half and a swelling and lacerated wound of 0.8 cm was present. 4. The lower half of the right leg was swollen and both the bones were fractured." In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injury No. 1, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. While referring to the evidence of eye witnesses PW-5 Rajwanti and PW-6 Des Ram, we do not find any material infirmity in the version given by the said witnesses qua Balwant Singh, Kuldeep and Pritam Singh. We will separately discuss the inference to be drawn about the role played by the accused. As regards Manbhari, who is attributed the role of Lalkara and who was empty handed, we are of the view that she is entitled to benefit of doubt. 9 PW-5 Rajwanti has corroborated the version given by her in the FIR. There is doubt about the role of Balwant Singh in causing the fatal blow to the deceased. The weapon used by Balwant Singh was Axe and the assault given was on the head. Injury No. 1 corroborates the role given to Balwant Singh and the said injury has been opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The version of PW-5 Rajwanti has been fully corroborated by her father PW-6 Des Ram. Minor discrepancies, which may be on account of perception or lapse of memory are not enough to discard the testimony of said witnesses qua the role of Balwant Singh. His conviction and sentence for causing the murder of Suraj Kaur is fully justified. 10. The version of PW-5 Rajwanti has been fully corroborated by her father PW-6 Des Ram. Minor discrepancies, which may be on account of perception or lapse of memory are not enough to discard the testimony of said witnesses qua the role of Balwant Singh. His conviction and sentence for causing the murder of Suraj Kaur is fully justified. 10. Coming to the role played by accused Kuldeep and Pritam Singh, though PWs. have mentioned about the previous enmity between the parties on account of dispute of sharing of tubewell water or raising of boundary of the fields, it cannot be held that all the accused had come with a planning to cause death of Suraj Kaur. It cannot also be held with certainty that Kuldeep and Pritam Singh shared common intention of Balwant Singh for causing the fatal blow. They will thus be liable for their individual act. We alter the conviction of Kuldeep to Section 326 IPC and that of Pritam Singh to Section 325 IPC. They will stand sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone. They will also pay compensation of Rs. One lakh each to the complainant. In default thereof, they will further undergo RI for a period of two years each. 11. Accordingly, while appeal of Manbhari is allowed and she is acquitted, appeal of Balwant Singh is dismissed, appeal of Kuldeep and Pritam Singh is partly allowed in the manner indicated above. No further order is called for on the revision petition. The appeal and revision petition will stand disposed of accordingly.