Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 529 (PNJ)

Gurdas Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-03-19

K.S.GAREWAL, NAWAB SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Nawab Singh J 1. This appeal has been filed by Gurdas Singh accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated February 4, 2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-with default stipulation. 2. Gurdas Singh, accused-appellant is husband of Sarabjit Kaur (deceased). They got married in the year 1989. Two children were born out of the wedlock. The spouses had strained relations. On May 24, 1997, Sarabjit Kaur sent a message to her father Kulwant Singh (PW-2) that she was being harassed by Gurdas Singh and asked him to reach at her in laws' house. Kulwant Singh along with Harnek Singh and Din Attar Singh reached the house of the accused on the same day. Sarabjit Kaur narrated to her father and above named two persons that she was being harassed by Gurdas Singh on petty matters. They consoled her and asked her that they would convene a Panchayat in the morning, that is on May 25, 1997 to settle the matter. Kulwlant Singh, Harnek Singh and Din Attar Singh slept on the first floor of the house of the accused. Gurdas Singh accused-appellant and Sarabjit Kaur (deceased) slept in the varandaha of the house on the ground floor. At about 3 A.M., Kulwant Singh got up to answer the call of nature and noticed that Gurdas Singh and Sarabjit Kaur were quarreling. Gurdas Singh was armed with an axe. Kulwant Singh raised alarm. Harnek Singh and Din Attar Singh also got up. Within their view, Gurdas Singh gave two axe blows, one after the other on the neck of Sarabjit Kaur. Sarabjit Kaur died instantaneously. Accused managed his escape with the weapon, that is, the axe from the spot. 3. Kulwant Singh proceeded to Police Station Talwandi Sabbo to lodge the complaint. Harnek Singh and Din Attar Singh remained on the spot to guard the dead-body. Kulwant Singh met Amarjit Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Talwandi Sabbo (PW-5) on the way and made his statement (Exhibit PD) to him. Amarjit Singh appended his endorsement (Exhibit PD/1) on the statement (Exhibit PD) and sent the same to Police station Talwandi Sabbo. Harnek Singh and Din Attar Singh remained on the spot to guard the dead-body. Kulwant Singh met Amarjit Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Talwandi Sabbo (PW-5) on the way and made his statement (Exhibit PD) to him. Amarjit Singh appended his endorsement (Exhibit PD/1) on the statement (Exhibit PD) and sent the same to Police station Talwandi Sabbo. On the basis of information sent by Amarjit Singh, formal First Information Report (Exhibit PD/2) was recorded. Inquest proceedings (Exhibit PC) were conducted. Blood stained 'Dari' and 'Cot' were taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PF) from the spot. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-1) along with Dr. Raj Kumar and Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Sarabjit Kaur. 4. Gurdas Singh was arrested on May 27, 1997. He was interrogated by Amarjit Singh (PW-5) and he made disclosure statement (Exhibit PG) in the presence of Hukam Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-4) and Kaur Singh that he had kept concealed an axe underneath the heap of cotton sticks in his field situated in village Lelewala. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit PG), the accused-appellant led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the axe (Exhbit P-1). Sketch (Exhibit PG/1) of the axe was prepared. The same was taken in possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PG/2). 5. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the accused-appellant was arraigned for trial. 6. Charge, in respect of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of its case, prosecution examined six witnesses viz. Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-1), Kulwant Singh eye witness-author of First Information Report (PW-2), Harnek Singh eye witness (PW-3), Hukam Chand, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-4), Amarjit Singh (PW-5) and Gurmail Singh (PW-6). 8. In his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant pleaded that he had cordial relations with his wife. On the day of occurrence, that is, May 25, 1997 at about 5.30 A.M, he asked his wife to prepare a cup of tea for him. She asked him to allow her to visit her parents. 8. In his examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant pleaded that he had cordial relations with his wife. On the day of occurrence, that is, May 25, 1997 at about 5.30 A.M, he asked his wife to prepare a cup of tea for him. She asked him to allow her to visit her parents. He requested her that since he was ill and in case, she visits her parents' house, there would be nobody to prepare his meals and look after the children and she could go after some time. His wife got enraged and started hurling abuses in the name of sister and asked him to bring his married sister to do the chores. In a fit of utter anger, being enraged at the grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased, he picked the axe lying in the courtyard and caused a blow on her neck. 9. The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties have been appraised. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has not challenged the findings on merits, i.e. regarding the causing of fatal injuries, rather, has submitted that the accused-appellant had not committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC because the offence was committed on the spur of moment when the quarrel ensued between the accused-appellant and his wife-deceased. It was in the heat of passion and without pre-meditation, that the accused-appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased. He had no intention to cause the injuries, which proved fatal. Since he had no intention to cause injuries as was likely to cause death and there was no pre-meditation and no intention to kill, the case would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, therefore, it is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. 11. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-1). He found the following injuries on the dead body of Sarabjit Kaur:- (1) An incised wound running 2 cms below the lower lip parallel to base of chin, measuring 18 cms x 10 cm in size and was cutting mandible, underlying muscles, trachea, oesophagus. All the vessels and nerves and cervical vertebrae having cut its anterior surface in the middle. Clotted blood was present. The wound was anterior and on left of neck. All the vessels and nerves and cervical vertebrae having cut its anterior surface in the middle. Clotted blood was present. The wound was anterior and on left of neck. On dissection, all the above-mentioned organs were found cut and froth was present on the tip of lower cut end of the trachea. (2) An incised wound measuring 4 cms x 31/2 cms situated 4/1-2 cms posterior to injury No.1 on the left side of neck. Clotted blood was present and on dissection only underlying muscles were found cut. 12. The Medical Officer opined that injuries received on the person of Sarabjit Kaur were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and those could be caused by axe (Exhibit P-1). 13. There is eye witness account in this case. Kulwant Singh (PW-2) and Harnek Singh (PW-3) are the eye witnesses. Both of them have spoken with one voice that relations between the accused and the deceased were strained. They reached the house of the accused-appellant on the asking of the deceased that she was being maltreated by the accused-appellant. They reached on May 24, 1997. They slept in the house of the accused-appellant. They witnessed that at about 3 A.M., accused-appellant used deadly weapon, that is, the axe in causing two injuries to the deceased. The injuries were caused on the vital area, that is, the neck of the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This factor alone suggests that the accused-appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. They have given a thorough narration of the manner in which the murder of Sarabjit Kaur was committed by the accused-appellant. There was no possibility of any coloured version. The testimony of Kulwant Singh (PW-2) and Harnek Singh (PW-3) is free from any blemish. Despite cross-examination, their credibility could not be shaken and therefore, there is not even remote reason why their testimony should not be relied upon implicitly. Their evidence is consistent with the medical evidence rendered by Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-1) referred to above. The plea of the accused-appellant that deceased abused him does not appear to be plausible, rather, it was an afterthought. Their evidence is consistent with the medical evidence rendered by Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW-1) referred to above. The plea of the accused-appellant that deceased abused him does not appear to be plausible, rather, it was an afterthought. Otherwise also, the circumstances do not even remotely suggest that accused-appellant could have been so provided that he had an un-controllable impulse as to lose self-control to repeatedly attack Sarabjit Kaur with an axe and kill her. The accused acted cruelly with no justification. The circumstances clearly indicate that explanation offered by the accused-appellant is palpably false. It cannot be said that the death of Sarabjit Kaur was caused due to any grave and sudden provocation given by her so as to deprive Gurdass Singh of the power of self-control. The defence set-up by the accused-appellant is not true. It is a clear-cut case of murder defined under Section 300 IPC and punishable under Section 302 IPC. It could not be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as such, it cannot be brought within the mischief of Section 304 IPC as convassed by learned counsel for the appellant. 14. In upshot, the evidence on record clearly establishes the commission of the offence by the accused-appellant. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Judge do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 15. The appeal is dismissed. 16. Gurdas Singh accused-appellant was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. Appeal dismissed.