Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 518 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh Alias Kanti v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-21

HEMANT GUPTA, JASWANT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. Accused-appellant Kulwant Singh @ Kanti is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, convicting him under Sec.302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for further period of three months. 2. Fir (Exh. PC/2) leading to the conviction and sentence of accused appellant-Kulwant Singh @ Kanti was got recorded on the statement (Ex. PC) of complainant eye-witness Harbans Kaur PW3- a resident of Gillan, PS Sadar Jalandhar- being the wife of deceased Charan Singh against her accused son Kulwant Singh @ Kanti for murdering his father. 3. The prosecution case as per statement Ex. PC, recorded by SI Harbhajan Singh pw6 on 20.6.2001 at 7.30 pm PM in the area of Village Gakhalan is that her deceased husband was addicted to liquor and that vice led him to sell his land measuring about three acres. Now he was in the process of selling his remaining land to one Paramjit Singh about which fact her (PW3 Harbans Kaurs) accused son Kulwant Singh @ Kanti came to know. On that day at about 3 pm her deceased husband came to the house and went to milch the she goat tied in the courtyard of their house situated in the fields. The complainant and her daughter in law sukhwinder Kaur PW3 also went to help the deceased. At that time accused kulwant Singh @ Kanti came there having a ghotna ( a wooden implement used in kitchen for crushing vegetables etc.) in his hand. He asked his deceased father charan Singh as to where from he had come. Upon this deceased Charan Singh retorted back by saying as to who he was to ask him that question and that he was going to sell the land. Following this a heated argument ensued between the deceased father and accused son. Soon, accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanti attacked deceased Charan Singh with ghotna which landed on left side temple of his cephalic region. He gave two more ghotna blows on the legs of deceased Charan singh whereupon latter fell down on the ground. Eye witness complainant harbans Kaur (PW3) and her daughter in law Sukhwinder Kaur (PW4) lifted Charan Singh and brought him to their house in the fields, where he was given water. He gave two more ghotna blows on the legs of deceased Charan singh whereupon latter fell down on the ground. Eye witness complainant harbans Kaur (PW3) and her daughter in law Sukhwinder Kaur (PW4) lifted Charan Singh and brought him to their house in the fields, where he was given water. However, deceased Charan Singh died then and there having been given ghotna blows by her son Kulwant Singh @ Kanti. This statement Ex. PC was signed by PW3 Harbans Kaur in token of its correctness. PW6 si Harbhajan Singh, thereafter made his endorsement Ex. PC/1 and sent the same to police station for registration of a case upon which formal FIR No.460 under section 302 IPC was registered at PS Sadar Jalandhar at 8.40 p. m., and the special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 10.40 p. m., on the same day. 4. After recording the aforesaid statement Ex. PC SI Harbhajan Singh PW6, inspected the spot, prepared visual site plan Ex. PH, inquest report Ex. PC, sent the dead body for post mortem examination vide application Ex. PF and recorded the statement Ex. PD of Sukhwinder Kaur PW4. Accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanti was arrested on the same day who produced the ghotna at the time of his arrest. 5. After completion of the investigation challan was submitted in the court. Vide order dated 23.8.2001 the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar charged the accused under Sec.302 IPC, to which charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , was recorded, in which he stated that he was innocent and had been Criminal Appeal No.335-DB of 2002.4falsely implicated at the instance of villagers who were inimical with him. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar after hearing both sides and evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. 8. No one put in appearance on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal. 9. We have heard the learned State counsel and perused the material on record. 10. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar after hearing both sides and evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. 8. No one put in appearance on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal. 9. We have heard the learned State counsel and perused the material on record. 10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent State that though eye-witnesses (PW3 Harbans Kaur and PW4 Sukhwinder Kaur) have turned hostile , however, in view of the material available on record, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Kulwant Singh @ Kanti is perfectly legal and justified and does not warrant any interference. 11. Pw3 Harbans Kaur, complainant and eye witness while appearing in the witness box did a complete somersault. It was stated by her that her deceased husband Charan Singh was addicted to liquor and all the family members used to forbid him from selling land. On 20.6.2001 when she had gone to her neighbours house she came to know that Charan Singh had sustained injuries and was lying in their land where they used to tether the cattle. On coming to the place of occurrence she noticed that Charan Singh was lying dead. According to her at that time accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanti was not present there. At this stage this witness was declared hostile and she was cross examined by Public Prosecutor. During her lengthy cross examination she denied the earlier version given by her to police in her statement Ex. PC. Similar is the position with regard to second eye witness i. e. Sukhwinder Kaur PW-4. She was also declared hostile and during her cross examination by Public Prosecutor she denied the earlier version given by her to the police in her statement Ex. PD. However, it is admitted case of both these witnesses that deceased Charan Singh was addicted to liquor and he had sold his land measuring 2-1/2 acres prior to the incident and had also agreed to sell his remaining land in favour of Paramjit Singh. It was further admitted by them that neither the deceased had enmity with anyone in the village nor on the day of occurrence anyone from the village had come to their Dera. It was further admitted by them that neither the deceased had enmity with anyone in the village nor on the day of occurrence anyone from the village had come to their Dera. During her examination in chief, it was specifically stated by PW3 Harbans Kaur that on coming to know about the deceased having sustained injuries when she came at the place of occurrence the deceased was lying dead on the ground. 12. Dr. AK Gupta, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar while appearing in the witness box as PW5 stated that on 21.6.2001 at 11.30 am he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Charan Singh. He found one bluish contusion over the left eye. It was further stated by him that another bluish contusion measuring 5x7 cm was present over the posterior aspect of the left lower leg close to the middle area. On dissecting the skin from scalp, he found a large haemotama just beneath the skin. On further exploration and cutting the skull bone an intra cranial hemorrhage in the left parietal area corresponding to the haemotama was found. It was opined by him that the cause of death was the head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature and probable time between injuries and death was within 1-2 hours and between death and postmortem was 24 hours. It was further stated by him that possibility of injuries with ghotna could not be ruled out. 13. From a careful analysis of the aforesaid chain of events corroborated/supported by medical evidence of Dr. AK Gupta, PW5, it can safely be inferred that the death of Charan Singh deceased had occurred in the manner suggested by the prosecution. No doubt, with the passage of time both the eye witnesses i. e. PW3 Harbans Kaur and PW4 Sukhwinder Kaur had a change of heart and as such turned hostile, but the fact remains that both of them have sufficiently explained the genesis of the occurrence. It is their admitted case that the deceased was an alcoholic and to meet his expenses he had already sold land measuring 2-1/2 acres. On coming to know about his design to sell the remaining land to one Paramjit Singh, there was a heated exchange of arguments between the deceased Charan Singh and his accused son Kulwant Singh @ Kanti. It is their admitted case that the deceased was an alcoholic and to meet his expenses he had already sold land measuring 2-1/2 acres. On coming to know about his design to sell the remaining land to one Paramjit Singh, there was a heated exchange of arguments between the deceased Charan Singh and his accused son Kulwant Singh @ Kanti. In that heat of moment accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanti inflicted injuries with ghotna, a kitchen implement easily available in every household in Punjab, to deceased on his head and legs resulting into the death of of Charan Singh. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned trial Court in holding that the death of deceased Charan Singh took place at the hands of accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanti. 14. We, however, are of the opinion that in view of the nature of weapon i. e. wooden ghotna and the single blow on the head of the deceased which resulted in haemotama, the accused appellant cannot be held guilty of offence to be covered under the definition of murder given in Sec.300 IPC. In our view the accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanti is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of Exception 4 to Sec.300 IPC. Accordingly, we hold appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.304 Part-II IPC and modify the sentence imposed upon him to that of already undergone. 15. The appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.