Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 520 (PNJ)

Ravi Shankar v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-21

JORA SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2010
Judgment JORA SINGH, J. 1. Appellant, Ravi Shankar has directed this appeal to impugn the judgment dated 12.12.2000 rendered by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar in Sessions Case no.12 of 24.8.1998 in case FIR No.107 dated 4.5.1998 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Mohali. By this judgment, appellant was convicted under Sec.302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine to further undergo for a period of three months. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 3/4.5.1998, a telephonic message was received in Police Station Mohali from police Station, PGI, Chandigarh regarding death of Veena and Anant Ram. On receipt of information, SI, Amrit Singh had gone to PGI, Chandigarh but near old barrier Mohali, Sunil Badan and Suresh Kumar had met the police party. Statement of Sunil Badan, Ex. PJ was recorded by SI, Amrit Singh. Sunil Badan reported to the police that he is resident of Jalandhar. His uncles, Ravi shankar, Pardeep Kumar, Chand Ram and grand father Anant Ram are residing in house No. C-79 Phase-VI, Mohali. On 3.5.1998, he along with his brother Suresh kumar came to Mohali to see them. Pardeep Kumar and Chand Ram were not present at home. Wife of Ravi Shankar had gone to her parental house along with her children. Ravi Shankar, Anant Ram and Veena were sleeping in the courtyard of ground floor. There was light of the electric bulb in the courtyard. At about 12:30 a. m, during the intervening night of 3- 4.5.1998, he along with his brother Suresh Kumar was present on the roof of the house. They heard noise from the ground floor. Ravi Shankar was demanding money from Veena and Anant ram to purchase intoxicants. Veena and Anant Ram were refusing to give him money to purchase intoxicants. An altercation took place between Ravi Shankar and Veena and Anant Ram. Ravi Shankar was armed with a knife. He gave number of blows to Veena. On receipt of knife blows, Veena fell down, then Ravi Shankar gave knife blows to Anant Ram. He along with his brother, present on the roof of the house had witnessed the occurrence. Raula was raised by them. After causing injuries, Ravi Shankar had fled away from the spot along with the knife. He gave number of blows to Veena. On receipt of knife blows, Veena fell down, then Ravi Shankar gave knife blows to Anant Ram. He along with his brother, present on the roof of the house had witnessed the occurrence. Raula was raised by them. After causing injuries, Ravi Shankar had fled away from the spot along with the knife. Veena and Anant Ram were shifted to Civil hospital, Phase-VI, Mohali by Sunil Badan and Suresh Kumar but the doctor had referred both the injured to PGI, Chandigarh. Veena had succumbed to her injuries on the way to PGI, Chandigarh. Anant Ram was got admitted in the PGI by Pardeep Kumar who was already present in the PGI. Anant Ram had also succumbed to his injuries while lying admitted in PGI. Sunil Badan while going to the Police Station to lodge report had met the police party near old barrier, Mohali. Statement was read over and explained to Sunil Badan. He signed the same after admitting the same to be correct. After making endorsement at 4:05 a. m, Statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded at 4:20 a. m. Special report was sent to the ilaqa Magistrate and the same was received at 8:30 a. m on 4.5.1998. Police party headed by SI, Amrit Singh had gone to PGI. Dead bodies were lying in the mortuary. Inquest reports Ex. PC and Ex. PR were prepared. Dead bodies were handed over to police officials for post mortem examination. Investigating officer had gone to the place of occurrence. 3. Rajesh Ariya and Babu Ram had produced the accused before the police. Accused was interrogated. Accused suffered disclosure statement Ex. PM. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he got recovered knife from the specified place. Sketch of the knife was prepared and the same was sealed. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PO attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan Ex. PT was prepared with correct marginal notes. Tarsem Lal, Constable had produced the clothes worn by the deceased and the same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PU attested by the witnesses. Blood stained earth was also collected from the spot and the same was sealed. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PK attested by the witnesses. Tarsem Lal, Constable had produced the clothes worn by the deceased and the same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PU attested by the witnesses. Blood stained earth was also collected from the spot and the same was sealed. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PK attested by the witnesses. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PX, challan was presented. Accused was charged under Sec.302 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined following witnesses to substantiate its charge: pw-1, Dr. Areet Kaur had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Veena Rani on 4.5.1998 and noted the following injuries on her person: 1. Just below the last rib there was wound 3"x1/1x4 1/2". The direction of the wound was backwards and upwards. Right lobe of the liver lacerated. Blood was present in the abdominal cavity. 2.1"x1/4"x2" wound on the right side of the naval. Underlying tissue lacerated. Margins clean and inverted. 3.1/2"x1/2"x1 1/2" in the epigesdrian. 4.3"x1x4" just above the right nipple. Margian Crl. Appeal No.474-DB of 2001 [5] ragged. Underlying tissue lacerated. Upper lobe of right lung punctured. 5.1/2"x1/4"x1" wound just below the right axilla. 6.1"a 1/2" x 2" wound just below the right nipple. 7.1/2" x 1 1/2" x 3" wound just above the knee on the lateral side of right thigh. Underlying tissue and vessels lacerated. 9.1"x1"x4" just below the left nipple. Underlying vessels lacerated. Left ventricular wall punctured in half thickness. Blood in the thorasic cavity. 5. Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by the multiple stab injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death under natural course of events. The probable time between injuries and death was within two hours and between death and post mortem was 24 hours. PW-2, D. M. Parsad Rao stated that on 4.5.1998 while serving in emergency surgical OPD in the PGI, he had prepared death summary Ex. PD of Veena rani who was brought dead to PGI at 12:45 a. m on 4.5.1998 and death summary ex. PE of Anant Ram who was declared dead at 2:30 a. m. PW-3 Gian Chand, Draftsman prepared scaled site plan Ex. PF. PW-4, Head Constable, Dev tendered his affidavit Ex. PG. PW-5, Constable Swaran Singh tendered his affidavit Ex. PH. PD of Veena rani who was brought dead to PGI at 12:45 a. m on 4.5.1998 and death summary ex. PE of Anant Ram who was declared dead at 2:30 a. m. PW-3 Gian Chand, Draftsman prepared scaled site plan Ex. PF. PW-4, Head Constable, Dev tendered his affidavit Ex. PG. PW-5, Constable Swaran Singh tendered his affidavit Ex. PH. PW-6, Sunil Badan and PW-7, Suresh Kumar are the eye witnesses and have supported prosecution story by saying that in their presence, injuries were caused by Ravi Shankar to Veena Rani and Anant Ram. Veena Rani had succumbed to her injuries while she was being shifted to PGI, Chandigarh. Anant ram had succumbed to his injuries while lying admitted in the PGI. PW-8, constable Hakam Singh had tendered his affidavit Ex. PL. PW-9, Babu Ram stated that on 4.5.1998 at 8:00 a. m he was present at his shop. Ravi Shankar came and had made extra judicial confession by saying that Veena Rani and Anant Ram were murdered by him with a knife. In the meantime, SI, Amrit Singh came. Ravi Shankar was produced before the police. Ravi Shankar was interrogated and as per disclosure statement suffered by Ravi shankar, got recovered knife from the specified place. Knife, Ex. P-1 was taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. PW-10, Dr. Adity Kumar Sharma on 4.5.1998 had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Anant Ram and found following injuries: 1. c Oblique incised wound of size 2.3 x 0.8 cm communicating with the abdominal cavity with both ends acute, present over the left anterior aspect of the abdomen, 17.5. cm from the mid line and at the level of umbilicus. Margin of the wounds wee sharp. 2. Operated wound:- Venesection (a stitched)of size 5x1x1 cm present over the medial aspect of right arm 2.5 cm above the elbow, it was an incised wound with sharp margins and acute ends and almost horizontals. Brain menigns, larynx and trachea both lungs, heart, mouth pharynx and oesophagus, liver, spleen, pancreas and kidneys were found pale. There was 2800 litres of haemo paritonial. 3. Incised wound of size 2.8 x 0.3 cm present in the peritoneum attached with the anterior aspect of descending colon. 4. (a) Incised wound of size 2.3 to 0.8 cm present in the descending colon incontinuiting with the injury no.1 in the abdominal wall. There was 2800 litres of haemo paritonial. 3. Incised wound of size 2.8 x 0.3 cm present in the peritoneum attached with the anterior aspect of descending colon. 4. (a) Incised wound of size 2.3 to 0.8 cm present in the descending colon incontinuiting with the injury no.1 in the abdominal wall. (4b) another wound of the same size was present exactly opposite to the wound 4 (a) in the descending colon. Both wounds 4 a and 4 (b) were communicating with lumen of colon. 6. Cause of death in this case was irreversible haemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries described above. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were caused by sharp edged weapon. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 24 hours and between death and post mortem was within 13 hours. PW-11, SI, Amrit Singh is the Investigating Officer. After the close of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused is that he was implicated at the instance of Sunil Badan and Suresh Kumar due to litigation regarding property. 7. In defence, Ranjit kaur, wife of Ravi Shankar appeared and stated that she along with her husband Ravi Shankar, Pardeep Kumar , Veena and Anant ram was residing in one house at Mohali. Her husband was earning Rs.500 to rs.600/- per day. Property owned by her father-in-law was joint and there used to remain dispute regarding property. Veena was characterless. Her husband told her that Suresh Kumar and Sunil Badan had illicit relations with Veena rani. Ravi Shankar was falsely implicated in this case. After hearing learned public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the evidence on file, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated aforesaid vide the impugned judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence was at about 12:30 a. m during night time whereas the statement of Sunil Badan was recorded at 4:05 am. Distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was only half kilometer. Dr. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence was at about 12:30 a. m during night time whereas the statement of Sunil Badan was recorded at 4:05 am. Distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was only half kilometer. Dr. M. Parsad admitted in cross- examination that while preparing death summary, no information was given about the assailants. In fact there was property dispute owned by Anant Ram. Due to litigation regarding property, appellant- accused was falsely implicated. Presence of alleged eye witnesses at the time of occurrence is doubtful. In Case, PW-6, Sunil Badan and PW-7, Suresh Kumar had witnessed the occurrence then they should have made an effort to intervene and catch hold of the appellant. Both the eye witnesses are young boys. They could easily snatch weapon. There was no reason for them to remain silent. Nine injuries on the person of Veena and four injuries on the person of Anant Ram were noticed as per post mortem reports. To cause injuries sufficient time is required. One or two injuries were expected to be caused by the appellant before arrival of the eye witnesses from roof to the ground No explanation why pardeep Kumar and Chand Ram were not in the house, at that time. In case Sunil badan and Suresh Kumar had shifted injured first to Civil Hospital, Mohali and then to PGI then their clothes should be stained with blood. Blood stained clothes of the alleged eye witnesses were not produced before the police. Learned counsel further argued that as per disclosure statement, knife was recovered after 8:00 a. m as per Babu Ram, whereas Amrit Singh IO stated that appellant-accused was arrested at 4/4:15 on the next morning. Babu Ram, PW-9 is the friend of Anant Ram. But statement of babu Ram inspires no confidence because at 8:00 a. m appellant appeared and made extra judicial confession and after that appellant was produced before the police. IO stated that the appellant was arrested at 4/4:15 on the next morning on the other hand, learned State counsel argued that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. Immediately after the occurrence at 12:30 a. m, injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Mohali. IO stated that the appellant was arrested at 4/4:15 on the next morning on the other hand, learned State counsel argued that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. Immediately after the occurrence at 12:30 a. m, injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Mohali. Keeping in view the condition of the injured, they were referred to PGI, Chandigarh but on the way, Veena had succumbed to her injuries. Death of Anant Ram was at 2:30 am while lying admitted at PGI, Chandigarh. On telephone, intimation was given to Pardeep kumar. Pardeep Kumar was already in the PGI and got admitted Anant Ram. After the death of Anant Ram, complainant had gone to lodge report but on the way, police party had met the complainant. Statement of the complainant was recorded at 4:05 a. m. Ruqa was sent to the police station. Special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 8:30 a. m on 4.5.1998. Doctor admitted that while preparing death summary, he had written stabbed by unknown person because no information about the assailants was given to him. No question to the doctor as to whether doctor had enquired from the eye witnesses as to who had caused injuries. Veena had succumbed to her injuries on the way. Condition of Anant ram was critical. He was in emergency ward. Doctors were busy to attend the patient. Attendants were outside the emergency ward. If no eqnuiry by the doctors as to who had caused injuries then on this short ground story is not to be ignored. 9. According to DW, Ranjit Kaur, property owned by Anant Ram was joint and there used to remain dispute regarding partition of property. Suggestion was given to the eye witnesses that they had illicit relations with Veena. Second suggestion given to the witnesses was that on the day of occurrence, eye witnesses tried to outrage the modesty of Veena. Anant Ram had witnessed the occurrence. If suggestion to the eye witnesses is correct one then there was no idea to murder Veena. No plea of the appellant-accused that he was not in the house or while present in the house had seen the eye witnesses while trying to outrage the modesty of Veena. In that case, appellant should have caused injuries to the alleged eye witnesses. Last suggestion to the witnesses was that appellant was not present in the house. No plea of the appellant-accused that he was not in the house or while present in the house had seen the eye witnesses while trying to outrage the modesty of Veena. In that case, appellant should have caused injuries to the alleged eye witnesses. Last suggestion to the witnesses was that appellant was not present in the house. But no explanation by the appellant when examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C as to where he was on the day of occurrence. Appellant was armed with knife. Number of blows were given to the deceased. At about 12:30 a. m, eye witnesses were on the roof. Sometimes due to fear, an effort is not made to catch hold of the accused or snatch weapon. All depends upon the circumstances of the case as to how witnesses present on the spot reacts. According to the evidence, injured were shifted by the eye witnesses. No question was put to the eye witnesses as to whether clothes worn by them were stained with blood or not. No question to the Investigating Officer as to why he did not take into possession the clothes of the eye witnesses. If due to some mistake unintentionally or intentionally, IO fails to take into possession the blood stained clothes of the eye witnesses, then on this short ground only, entire story is not to be ignored. Babu Ram is the friend of Anant Ram, deceased. Appellant and the deceased were residing in the same house. Immediately, after the occurrence at 8:00 a. m, appellant had made extra judicial confession before Babu Ram and one rajesh Ariya. Rajesh Ariya was not examined. He could be produced in defence, if the appellant had not made extra judicial confession before them. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized. First submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is delay in lodging the FIR. But after going through the evidence on the file, we are of the opinion that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence was at about 12:30 a. m on the intervening night of 3-4.5.1998. After committing crime, appellant had fled away from the spot with a knife. Both the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Mohali. They were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. While going to PGI, Chandigahr, Veena had succumbed to her injuries. At 12:45 a. m, complainant-party had reached chandigarh. Occurrence was at about 12:30 a. m on the intervening night of 3-4.5.1998. After committing crime, appellant had fled away from the spot with a knife. Both the injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Mohali. They were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. While going to PGI, Chandigahr, Veena had succumbed to her injuries. At 12:45 a. m, complainant-party had reached chandigarh. Doctor M. Parsad stated that Veena was brought dead to PGI at 12:45 a. m during night time. Anant Ram was admitted in the PGI. But Anant Ram had succumbed to his injuries at 2:30 a. m. Condition of both the injured was serious. Nine injuries with a knife were noticed on the person of Veena. When injured were being shifted to PGI then on telephone message was conveyed Crl. Appeal No.474-DB of 2001 [13] to Pardeep Kumar to reach PGI, Chandigarh. Pardeep Kumar had already reached there and got admitted Anant Ram. Complainant- party remained busy in PGI to save the life of Anant Ram. When condition of the injured is critical then an effort is made to shift the injured to the nearest hospital to save his life. By leaving the injured on the spot, no one is supposed to visit the police station to lodge report. After death of Anant Ram at 2:30 a. m, complainant had gone to lodge report and on the way near old barrier, Mohali, police party headed by Amrit Singh, SI had met the complainant. Statement of the complainant was recorded at about 4:05 a. m. After making endorsement, Statement was sent to the police station. Formal FIR was recorded at 4:20 am. Special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 8:30 am on the same day. So, delay if any, is not fatal. Delay rather stands explained by the prosecution. Dr. M. Parsad while appearing as PW-2 stated that he prepared death summaries of Veena Rani Ex. PD and Anant Ram, Ex. PE. In cross-examination, doctor stated that it was written by him under the colum `how did injury occur as stabbed by unknown person because no information about the assailants was given to him. From this one line by doctor, it cannot be presumed that injury was caused by some unknown person because no question was put to the doctor as to whether enquiry was made by him from the attendants as to who had caused injuries. From this one line by doctor, it cannot be presumed that injury was caused by some unknown person because no question was put to the doctor as to whether enquiry was made by him from the attendants as to who had caused injuries. While going to PGI, Veena had succumbed to her injuries on the way. Anant Ram was got admitted at 12:45 a. m in the PGI, Chandigarh. He died at 2:30 am. Doctors were trying their best to save the life of Anant Ram. There was no time to enquire from the attendants who were standing outside the emergency ward, as to who had caused injuries. Something is to be said if a question to the doctor as to whether he had enquired from Sunil Badan or Suresh Kumar as to who had caused injuries and after enquiry reply was that some unknown assailants had caused injuries. 10. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that presence of eye witnesses at the time of alleged occurrence is doubtful because no effort was made by them to apprehend the appellant. Secondly, blood stained clothes of the alleged eye witnesses were not produced before the Investigating officer. But evidence on record shows that there is no reason to doubt the presence of the eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are the real brothers, nephews of veena and grand sons of second deceased, Anant Ram. Appellant along with his brothers, Pardeep Kumar and Chand Ram was residing in the same house along with anant Ram. Pardeep Kumar on the day of occurrence was present in the house of his sister situated in Sector 47, Chandigarh. Suggestion was given to Suresh kumar and Sunil Kumar that on the intervening night of 3- 4.5.1998, they had tried to outrage the modesty of Veena and their action came to the notice of anant Ram. That means, both the eye witnesses were present in the house of the deceased. DW-1, Ranjit Kaur wife of the petitioner, in examination-in-chief, stated that she along with her husband, Pardeep Kumar and his wife, Chand Ram and Anant Ram were residing in the same house situated in Mohali. Appellant-accused when examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C then did not state a word that he was not present in the house on the intervening night of 3-4.5.1998. As per defence version, Ranjit Kaur was present in the house. Appellant-accused when examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C then did not state a word that he was not present in the house on the intervening night of 3-4.5.1998. As per defence version, Ranjit Kaur was present in the house. But she did not state a word that some unknown assailants had caused injuries to Veena and Anant Ram. If some unknonwn assailants had caused injuries then Ranjit Kaur should have shifted the injured to the hospital. She could report the matter to the police but neither Ranjit Kaur nor the appellant reported the matter to the police. If eye witnesses failed to produce their clothes before the police then their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. 11. Counsel for the appellant stated that there was a dispute regarding property owned by Anant Ram. Due to property dispute, appellant was falsely implicated in this case. But no evidence on the file as to whether before the present occurrence, there was any litigation qua property of Anant Ram. According to the story, appellant was demanding money from the deceased for purchase of intoxicants. Veena and Anant Ram were not agreeing to give him money. Then appellant had caused injuries to Veena and Anant Ram. In case there was dispute regarding property, then complainant-party was not to get anything by murdering Veena and Anant Ram. As per suggestion to the witnesses, if they tried to outrage the modesty of Veena then why appellant murdered Veena and anant Ram. Appellant could easily cause injuries to Sunil Badan and Suresh kumar. If as per suggestion to the witnesses, Sunil Badan and Suresh Kumar tried to outrage the modesty of Veena and their action was noticed by Anant Ram then eye witnesses were expected to murder anant Ram and not Veena. No allegation by the petitioner or Ranjit Kaur that they were present in the house and Sunil Badan and his brother Suresh Kumar had caused injuries to Veena and Anant Ram. All this shows that there was no property dispute amongst the parties. In fact appellant being a drug addict was demanding money from the deceased and when they refused to given him money, then appellant had caused injuries to them. That is why appellant did not report the matter to the police or made an effort to shift the injured to the nearest hospital for medical aid. In fact appellant being a drug addict was demanding money from the deceased and when they refused to given him money, then appellant had caused injuries to them. That is why appellant did not report the matter to the police or made an effort to shift the injured to the nearest hospital for medical aid. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that story qua extra judicial confession before Babu Ram is not genuine one, but there is nothing on the file to disbelieve Babu Ram who is the friend of Anant Ram, deceased. At 8:00 a. m, petitioner had made extra judicial confession before Babu Ram and Rajesh Ariya. After that they had produced the appellant before the police. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made before Babu Ram, knife was got recovered by the appellant from his residence. Knife was found to be stained with blood. After committing the crime, petitioner was expected to approach any respectable person to save himself from torture at the hands of the police. Babu Ram was friend of the deceased. To save himself from torture at the hands of police, appellant had contacted Babu Ram. If story qua extra jduicial confession is not correct then rajesh Ariya could be produced in defence. After 8:00 am, weapon was got recovered. Till today no complaint to any authority regarding false implication. One line in the cross-examination of the IO, Amrit Singh that appellant was arrested at 4:00/4:15 am is not sufficient to ignore the prosecution version. Time of arrest by the investigating Officer seems to be disclosed due to some mistake because in fact after recording the statement of Sunil, after making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station at 4:05 a. m. 12. No other submission was put forward. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. We do not find any illegality in the conviction of the appellant for committing the murder of Veena and Anant Ram. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed.