Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 107 (PNJ)

Sandip Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-07

JORA SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2010
Judgment SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Appellant Sandip Kumar was tried by Sessions Judge, Patiala on the charge under Sec.302 IPC for committing the murder of Vikas Kumar son of Kamal Singh (complainant ). Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.4.2001, the appellant was convicted under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. In the present case, the FIR (Ex. PD/2) was registered at Police station Islamabad on 7.10.1998 at 3.05 AM on the statement (Ex. PD) made by kamal Singh at 2.45 AM on the same day to SI Balkar Singh at Chowk Putlighar, amritsar. In his statement (Ex. PD), Kamal Singh stated that he was doing the business of supply of breads to shopkeepers on their shops. He was having two sons, namely, Vikas Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, who were also working with him. On 6.10.1998 at about 10 PM, he and his son rajesh Kumar were coming to their house after collecting payments from shopkeepers and when they reached near the factory of Iron Nail of Daljit Singh matharoo, they saw that accused Sandip Kumar was quarreling with his son Vikas kumar and was saying to him to give his money. His son was saying to him that he had no money at that time and would give the same later on. At that time, the electric bulb was on in the street. In light of that they saw that Sandip kumar gave dagger blows in the abdomen of his son Vikas Kumar. Thereupon, he fell down on the ground. He further stated that when they raised alarm, then sandip Kumar ran away from the spot along with dagger. On hearing their noise, many people of the locality came at the spot. They made arrangement for conveyance and took Vikas Kumar to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital where doctor declared him dead. He further stated that he left Jagdish Pal and Rattan Singh near the dead body and went to inform the police. He stated that the cause of quarrel was gambling and give and take of money. They made arrangement for conveyance and took Vikas Kumar to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital where doctor declared him dead. He further stated that he left Jagdish Pal and Rattan Singh near the dead body and went to inform the police. He stated that the cause of quarrel was gambling and give and take of money. After sending the said statement to Police Station Islamabad through SPO Kedar Nath for registration of the case, SI Balkar Singh along with complainant Kamal Singh reached Guru nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. He prepared the inquest report (Ex. PC) in respect of the dead body of Vikas Kumar in presence of the witnesses. The dead body was sent for post mortem. 2. Pw1-dr. ASHOK Chanana, on police application (Ex. PA) conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Vikas Kumar. He found 10 injuries on the body of the deceased which were ante-mortem in nature. In his opinion, the cause of death was perforation of heart, as a result of injury No.4, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thereafter, SI Balkar Singh went to the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth and gravel from the spot and also prepared the rough site-plan (Ex. PO ). 3. During the investigation, on 9.10.1998, accused Sandip Kumar was produced before the police by Vipin Kumar. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex. PR) on 11.10.1998 to the effect that he had kept concealed a dagger (Ex. P1) in the demolished portion of his house. On the basis of his disclosure statement, the dagger was got recovered and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PR/2) in presence of the official witnesses. 4. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. He was charge-sheeted under Sec.302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including PW5 complainant Kamal Singh, PW6-Rajesh Kumar, another eye-witness and PW8-SI Balkar Singh. All the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. 6. The accused in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. According to him, some unidentified persons had killed Vikas Kumar and later on, the complainant in connivance with the police got him implicated in this false case. All the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. 6. The accused in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. According to him, some unidentified persons had killed Vikas Kumar and later on, the complainant in connivance with the police got him implicated in this false case. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on the basis of medical evidence and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which were found to be trustworthy, the trial Court convicted appellant Sandip Kumar under Sec.302 ipc and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case, and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conduct of both the eye-witnesses, coupled with the contradiction in their statements, clearly indicate that both the witnesses had not seen the occurrence as they were not present at that time at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that when the accused was causing injuries by dagger to the son and brother of both the eye-witnesses, they never made any attempt or tried to intervene and save him, though the alleged occurrence had taken place in their presence. This conduct of both the eye-witnesses is wholly improbable and lead to conclusion that their statements were concocted and actually they were not present at the spot. In this regard, learned counsel further argued that PW5-Kamal Singh in his statement before the police (Ex. PD) and before the Court had stated that accused Sandip Kumar gave dagger blows to Vikas Kumar in his abdomen. Thereupon, he fell down on the ground. This part of the statement has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. As per the post-mortem report (Ex. PF) and the statement of PW1- Dr. Ashok Chanana, there were 10 injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased and injury No.4, which proved fatal, was on the chest of the deceased. This part of the statement has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. As per the post-mortem report (Ex. PF) and the statement of PW1- Dr. Ashok Chanana, there were 10 injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased and injury No.4, which proved fatal, was on the chest of the deceased. Learned counsel further argued that the statement of pw6-Rajesh Kumar, another eye-witness to the effect that firstly the accused gave dagger blows to the deceased in his abdomen and thereafter he gave five/seven more blows to the deceased and after receipt of the dagger blows, the deceased fell down on the ground, is an improvement made by the said witness while making statement in the Court. Learned counsel further argued that as per the prosecution version, on the noise made by the complainant and other eye-witnesses, many persons of the locality came on the spot. But none of them has been examined by the prosecution, which fact has not been taken into consideration by the trial court while convicting the appellant. 9. In the last, learned counsel argued that the recovery of dagger (Ex. P1),on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, from his residential house has not been proved. None of the attesting witnesses of the disclosure statement and the recovery memo have been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of these facts, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. In our opinion, the prosecution has led sufficient reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to prove the charge of committing the murder of Vikas Kumar against the appellant. The alleged incident had taken place on 6.10.1998 at about 10 PM near the factory of Iron Nail of Daljit Singh matharoo. At that time, both the eye-witnesses were returning back to their home after collecting payments from their customers. There is nothing unusual for coming to their house at that time. They saw the occurrence from a distance of 15/20 yards. It has been categorically stated by these two witnesses that when accused was giving dagger blows to deceased Vikas Kumar, no other person was present in the street. The other persons came on the spot only after hearing the noise of the witnesses. They saw the occurrence from a distance of 15/20 yards. It has been categorically stated by these two witnesses that when accused was giving dagger blows to deceased Vikas Kumar, no other person was present in the street. The other persons came on the spot only after hearing the noise of the witnesses. In the cross-examination, these witnesses have specifically stated that there was no time with them to catch hold the accused as after giving the dagger blows, the accused had run away on hearing their cries `bachao bachao. It is pertinent to mention here that in the cross-examination of both the witnesses, no suggestion was put to them that they were not present on the scene and they had not seen the occurrence. Rather, a suggestion was given that after the incident, they took Vikas Kumar, injured to the private hospital and not to the government hospital, therefore, in a way the presence of both the witnesses was not questioned. Merely because the witnesses, who were at a distance of 15/20 yards, did not try to intervene and save the deceased from the clutches of the accused, does not lead to the inference that both the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot. Since in the present case the occurrence was seen by these two witnesses, non-examination of the other persons, who came on the spot later on, does not prove fatal to the prosecution case. No suggestion was put by the defence to these witnesses that when the accused was causing injuries to the deceased, the other persons were also present and had seen the occurrence. As per the statement of these two witnesses, the other persons collected at the spot later on when the accused had already run away from the spot after causing injuries to the deceased. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding contradictions between the statements of these two witnesses with regard to dagger blows given to the deceased, is also not convincing. PW5-Kamal singh, father of the deceased has categorically stated that accused gave dagger blows in the abdomen of the deceased. PW6-Rajesh Kumar has also stated so. He has also explained that after giving dagger blows in the abdomen, the accused further gave five/seven blows on the body of the deceased. In our view, the said statements cannot be taken as contrary to the medical evidence. PW6-Rajesh Kumar has also stated so. He has also explained that after giving dagger blows in the abdomen, the accused further gave five/seven blows on the body of the deceased. In our view, the said statements cannot be taken as contrary to the medical evidence. In our view, if an occurrence is seen from the distance of 15/20 yards, the exact description of causing the injuries on the particular part of the body, cannot be narrated. PW1-Dr. Ashok Chanana in his cross- examination has categorically stated that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the dagger (Ex. P1) recovered from the house of the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not proved the recovery of the dagger (Ex. P1) from the accused, cannot be accepted. The production of the accused by vipin Kumar on 9.10.1998 has not been disputed. On 11.10.1998, during interrogation, a disclosure statement was recorded and on the basis of the said statement, the recovery of the dagger (Ex. P1) was made vide recovery memo (Ex. PR/2 ). PW8-SI Balkar Singh, Investigating Officer has proved the said statement and the recovery. Merely because the other persons, who had witnessed the said occurrence, have not been examined, it cannot be inferred that the said recovery was not effected from the house of the appellant at his instance. In the cross-examination of the said witness, no suggestion was put that no such recovery was effected from the house of the appellant at his instance. In support of his defence, the appellant did not lead any evidence. On the record, there is no material to show any reason of false implication of the appellant. In our opinion, the prosecution led sufficient evidence in support of its case to prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and the same are upheld. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.