Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1293 (PNJ)

Partap Singh v. State of Haryana

2011-05-30

A.N.JINDAL, HEMANT GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT A. N. JINDAL, J. (1) ILLICIT intimacy of deceased-Satpal with the wife of Dalbir accused is said to be the cause behind his murder, allegedly at the hands of the accused-appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the accused'). Consequently, all the accused were tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ each, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. (2) THE factual matrix of the case is that Satpal (deceased) suspected to be having illicit intimacy with the wife of accused Dalbir Singh. On 15.01.2004 at about 10.30 p.m., Rajinder Singh complainant along with his brothers Satpal and Gopal was returning to his house. When They reached near the house of Dalbir, the latter called upon Satpal to come to his house on the pretext of some urgent work. At this, Satpal went inside, whereas Rajinder Singh and Gopal Singh stayed outside to wait for him. When Satpal went inside the house, all the three accused sons of Pema Ram attacked Satpal. Partap Singh was having a kappa, whereas Satish was armed with a lathi. Accused Dalbir was armed with 'ghota' (heavy stick). They also saw that accused Partap Singh gave two kappa blows on the head of Satpal. Satish gave lathi blows on his head and legs. Accused Dalbir also inflicted many 'ghota' blows on his back. Accused Dalbir proclaimed that 'ghota' smeared with chilly, be inserted inside his anus. THEreafter, accused Partap lifted a danda from the courtyard of his house and smeared it with chilly and inserted in his anus. Upon this, Satpal started crying, but sometime thereafter, he went silent. Consequently, complainant and Gopal Singh made hue and cry, however, the accused proclaimed that Satpal had died and They further proclaimed that They would see them later and left the place. Motive behind the occurrence is that accused-Dalbir was suspecting that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife and was making misuse of his visits regarding money transaction between him and Satpal. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PA, made by Rajinder Singh, which was completed at 5.15 a.m., FIR No. 9 was recorded on 16.01.2004 at 5.30 a.m. Special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at 10.00 a.m., on that day. The law was set in motion. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PA, made by Rajinder Singh, which was completed at 5.15 a.m., FIR No. 9 was recorded on 16.01.2004 at 5.30 a.m. Special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at 10.00 a.m., on that day. The law was set in motion. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest and sent the dead body for conducting autopsy. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. (3) ON commitment, all the accused were charged for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (4) IN order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all, out of which Dr.Gobind Gupta (PW-6), Rajinder Singh-complainant (PW-7), Gopal Singh (PW-8) and SI Ram Chander, INvestigating Officer (PW-10), are the material witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Accused Dalbir explained as under: "I am innocent. On the said night, I was not present at the place of occurrence. Satpal-deceased entered my house in my absence and tried to outrage the modesty of my wife. When she raised alarm, mob of the village abadi gathered there and Satpal was beaten up by the mob. I did not take part in this incident. I was falsely implicated in the case." (5) THE other accused also took the identical pleas. (6) IN defence, the accused examined Savitri (DW-1). She stated that on the date of occurrence, the deceased had entered their house and tried to outrage her modesty, whereupon the villagers gathered there and beat him. During cross-examination, she stated that Partap Singh and Satish are real brothers of her husband Dalbir Singh. Her sister is married to Partap-accused. On the day of occurrence, the deceased had visited their house twice, first of all at 8.00 p.m. and then at 10.00 p.m. Her son is aged about 15 years. She does not know as to who had come at the place of occurrence. The deceased was caused injuries inside the house. She did not lodge any report about attacking her modesty by the deceased. She also did not inform the higher authorities about what happened with her. Beer Singh (DW-2) is closely related to the accused. She does not know as to who had come at the place of occurrence. The deceased was caused injuries inside the house. She did not lodge any report about attacking her modesty by the deceased. She also did not inform the higher authorities about what happened with her. Beer Singh (DW-2) is closely related to the accused. His grand-daughter Shailendra is married to Satish-accused. He stated that Satish was not present in the house on the day of occurrence. In the evening of 15.01.2004, Satish had gone to attend the congregation at the house of his son Devi Lal. (7) HOWEVER, Devi Lal was not examined. No evidence was led to prove that there was congregation at the house of Devi Lal. None of the persons, who attended the congregation, was examined. No invitation card was proved. (8) KANHA Ram (DW-3) has stated that he was Sarpanch of the village. He also stated that Satish was married to the daughter of Devi Lal and on the day of occurrence, Satish had gone to attend the congregation at the house of Devi Lal. He also admits that They did not join the investigation to disclose about the innocence of accused Satish and his presence at the house of his in-laws. The trial resulted into conviction. Arguments heard. Record perused. (9) THE case pertains to the brutal murder of Satpal, who suffered at least 19 injuries. Dr. Gobind Gupta, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa, while appearing as PW-6, observed the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "1. Multiple red coloured contusions over fronto parietal region both sides varying shapes and sizes with a lacerated wound measuring 2 cms x 0.5 cms in the mid frontal region. On dissection subcutaneous infiltration of blood was present. 2. Lacerated wound size 6 cms x 0.5 cms on right parieto-parietal region. On dissection subcutaneous infiltration of blood was present. On further dissection subdural haematoma was present in the fronto parietal region both sides of the parieto-occipital region, there was fracture of the skull in the right occipital region corresponding to injury No.2. On dissection of the skull, there was a large subdural haematoma in the fronto-parietal region both sides. 3. A reddish contusion over bridge of the nose. On dissection subcutaneous infiltration of blood was present. 4. An ill defined reddish contusion over left side of face lateral to left orbits. On dissection of the skull, there was a large subdural haematoma in the fronto-parietal region both sides. 3. A reddish contusion over bridge of the nose. On dissection subcutaneous infiltration of blood was present. 4. An ill defined reddish contusion over left side of face lateral to left orbits. On dissection subcutaneous infiltration of blood was present. 5. An ill defined reddish contusion over right side of face lateral to right orbit, on dissection s/c infiltration of blood was present. 6. A reddish contusion over left shoulder posteriorly size 3 x 3 cms. On dissection, there was S/C infiltration of blood was present. 7. An ill defined contusion over left arm, middle third, anteriolateral surface, on dissection S/C infiltration of blood was present. 8. A well defined contusion over left wrist lateral surface, size 3x3 cms. On dissection S/C infiltration of blood was present. 9. A lacerated wound over base of left thumb. Palmer surface size 3x1 cms. On dissection S/C infiltration of blood was present. 10. Multiple contusions over dorsal surface of all the left hand fingers. On dissection S/C infiltration of blood was present. 11. A contusion red in colour 3x1 cms over right shoulder anterior surface. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. 12. Multiple contusions over right arm lower l/3rd and whole forearm including elbow of varying sizes and shapes over postero-lateral surface. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. 13. Multiple contusions of varying shapes and sizes over back on both sides. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. (10) A contusion of 8 x 5 cms red in colour over right thigh. Lower half lateral surface. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. Multiple contusions ill defined over right knee, red in colour. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. On further dissection there was multiple fractures of underlying patella bone. (11) MULTIPLE contusions over right leg over anterior surface with two incised wounds size 2.5 cms x 0.5 cm and 1.5 cms x 0.5 cm, 2 cms apart over middle l/3rd anterior surface. (12) CONTUSION over left thigh middle third lateral surface size 10 x 6 cms. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. Multiple contusions over left knee, leg and foot of varying sizes and shapes all over. On further dissection, there was S/C infiltration of blood was present. (12) CONTUSION over left thigh middle third lateral surface size 10 x 6 cms. On dissection, S/C infiltration of blood was present. Multiple contusions over left knee, leg and foot of varying sizes and shapes all over. On further dissection, there was S/C infiltration of blood was present. On further dissection there was fracture of left patella bone and fracture of 3rd and 4th of metatorsal bone. (13) THERE were small lacerations present on the mucocutaneous junction of anus dried blood was present." 14. He further opined that Satpal died as a result of haemorrhage and shock on account of the injuries on his vital parts, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time lapsed between injuries and death was variable and between death and postmortem was 24 hours. He further deposed that on 04.02.2004, on the application Ex.PH, moved by the police, he had unsealed the 'kappa' and opined that injury Nos.l and 2 on the body of the deceased could be the result of the said 'kappa'. He proved his opinion Ex.PH/1 in that regard. He also proved the pant Ex.Pl, shirt Ex.P2, kappa Ex.P3, socks Ex.P4/land2 and shoes Ex.P5/land2, which were removed from the dead body and handed over to the police. He also opined that the deceased could have received the injuries at about 10.30 p.m. on 15.01.2004. 15. Rajinder Singh (PW-7) and Gopal Singh (PW-8) have reiterated the prosecution version in all material particulars. They have stated that all the three accused had caused injuries to the deceased. In order to explain the delay in lodging the FIR, the witnesses have stated that first of all, They went to their houses, thereafter, They went to the police station on foot; and the police recorded the statement Ex.Pl at 5.00 a.m. in the torchlight. The witnesses have also proved the recoveries of the weapons of offence from the accused. 16. Learned counsel for the accused has urged that the motive for commission of the crime does not stand proved. We do not countenance this contention. Both the eye witnesses have consistently stated that Dalbir was annoyed with the deceased on account of his illicit intimacy with his (Dalbir's) wife. He and Partap Singh being brothers having married with two sisters, were much concerned about the conduct of the deceased. All the three accused had adjoining houses. We do not countenance this contention. Both the eye witnesses have consistently stated that Dalbir was annoyed with the deceased on account of his illicit intimacy with his (Dalbir's) wife. He and Partap Singh being brothers having married with two sisters, were much concerned about the conduct of the deceased. All the three accused had adjoining houses. The occurrence took place in the house of Dalbir and the dead body was also recovered by the police from his house. It has also come in the evidence that accused-Dalbir and the deceased had money transactions and the deceased was exploiting the said connection. THEREfore, motive for commission of the crime stands duly established. 17. As regards presence of the witnesses Rajinder Singh (PW7) and Gopal Singh (PW-8) at the place of occurrence, both the witnesses have stuck to their guns by saying that Rajinder Singh had 5'/z acres of agricultural land and Gopal Singh also had field towards that side. Rajinder Singh (PW-7) has stated that They had a turn of water on that day. He had gone to the field at 4.00 p.m., when Satpal was already there. They stayed in the field till 10.00 p.m. with an intention to guard the crop against wild animals. Since their tubewell was not properly working, therefore, They had to call a mechanic, who after making repairs, had left at 7.30 p.m. Thus, obviously, Satpal and Rajinder Singh had become late. Similarly, Gopal Singh (PW-8) has explained during cross-examination that he had gone to the fields as usual at 6.00 a.m. and on that day, he was returning from his fields at about 10.00 p.m. when he met Rajinder Singh and Satpal who were also returning after attending the turn of water. Thus, their presence at the spot cannot be termed as doubtful. It was a winter season. Satpal could not be presumed to come alone from the fields during late in the night and in the winter season. As such, no improbability could be seen in the fact that Gopal Singh and Rajinder Singh were accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence. 18. It was a winter season. Satpal could not be presumed to come alone from the fields during late in the night and in the winter season. As such, no improbability could be seen in the fact that Gopal Singh and Rajinder Singh were accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence. 18. As regards the argument that, had the witnesses been present at the spot, then They would have also been attacked by the accused, we see no merit in the contention as the focus of Dalbir was only upon Satpal and the latter was the only target as his conduct had hurt accused Dalbir and his brothers and They wanted to teach him a lesson for bringing defame to the family. 19. The argument that the witnesses did not try to intervene, also does not appeal to the preponderance of probabilities. The witnesses were outside, whereas the accused and the deceased were inside the house. The accused were three in number and were equipped with deadly weapons. In such situation what was expected from them, They did as They raised hue and cry. It appears that by the time They reached the injured, the accused after causing injuries, had fled away. Even otherwise, different type of people having diverse habits, temperaments and nature, act differently. Most of them try to seclude themselves by staying away, so that They may also not become victims. However, Rajinder Singh (PW-7) has specifically stated that on seeing the accused inflicting injuries to Satpal, he raised hue and cry. This conduct on their part can neither be criticised nor improbabilises their presence at the spot. (14) AS regards the source of light which provided visibility to the witnesses to see the occurrence, a reference to the statement of Radhey Sham, Draftsman (PW-5) has been made, which indicates that an electric bulb at point 'L', shown in -the site plan Ex.PE, was hanging on the wall itself without any separate point. There was no other point of electricity on the outer portion as well as in the inner portion of the house. The witnesses had seen the occurrence in the light of the aforesaid electric bulb. Even the Investigating Officer in his rough site plan, prepared at the spot, has indicated the electric bulb with the help of which, the witnesses could see the occurrence. The witnesses had seen the occurrence in the light of the aforesaid electric bulb. Even the Investigating Officer in his rough site plan, prepared at the spot, has indicated the electric bulb with the help of which, the witnesses could see the occurrence. Now coming to the other evidence, it may be observed that Dr. Gobind Gupta (PW-6) has testified that injury Nos.1 and 2 could be result of the 'kappa' blows. According to the prosecution, injury Nos. 1 and 2 had been caused on the person of the deceased with a 'kappa' blow. Undisputedly, both the injuries are lacerated wounds caused by the blunt side of the 'kappa'. No such question was asked by the accused that these injuries could not be the result of blunt side of the 'kappa'. PW-6 Dr. Gobind Gupta has testified that these injuries were the result of blunt weapon. It is not the case of the prosecution that injuries were caused by the sharp side of the 'kappa'. Therefore, these injuries could possibly be the result of blunt side of the 'kappa'. It may further be observed that these injuries are multiple contusions and injury No.2 indicates a lacerated wound 6 cms x 5 cms on the right parieto-parietal region resulting into fracture of the skull in the right occipital region. The allegations are also that accused-Satish as well as Partap Singh caused injuries on the head of the deceased. Thus, the ocular version fits in with the medical evidence. In any case, since the accused were inside and the witnesses were outside, though They could see the accused causing injuries, but in such a situation when three accused showered injuries upon the deceased like rain, in that situation, it would be difficult for them to make correct account of the facts as to which side of the weapon was used by them for the commission of the crime. Thus, a little contradiction in the medical evidence and ocular version, in the given circumstances of the case, cannot be used as a protective umbrella for exonerating three accused for causing 19 injuries, beating the deceased mercilessly and turning him to a corpse. As such, these contradictions cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The witnesses had no enmity against the accused for implicating them falsely in this case. (15) THE deceased died at the house of the accused. As such, these contradictions cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The witnesses had no enmity against the accused for implicating them falsely in this case. (15) THE deceased died at the house of the accused. He was bearing 19 injuries on his body. THE accused fled away from the house and were not available at the time when the Investigating Officer reached the spot. They were arrested later on and the weapons of offence were recovered from them. Partap Singh accused was arrested on 26.01.2004 and during interrogation, he made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which, he got recovered a 'kappa' Ex.P6, a danda Ex.P7, 'kamij' Ex.P8 and 'pajama' Ex.P9. THEn, Dalbir after his arrest, got recovered one 'ghota' Ex.P10, 'pajama' Ex.P11 (which was worn by him) at the time of occurrence. (16) IN the present case there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place at about 10.00 p.m. The police station is at a distance of 7 kilometers. It has come in evidence that the complainant had gone to lodge the FIR on foot. He must have spent sometime near the dead body. Thus, delay, if any, in lodging the FUR, is well explained and no examination/association of independent witness in such peculiar circumstances and time, would not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The dead body was recovered from the house of the accused bearing 19 injuries, therefore, They were to explain as to who else and at whose hands, the deceased had suffered injuries. Had he suffered injuries at the hands of the public, then public would have come at the help of the accused. But, none from the village approached the Investigating Officer in order to support the story, set up by the defence. (17) NO other argument has been advanced. (18) THUS, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. As such, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.