Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 363 (PNJ)

Manohar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-01-31

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, RAJIV SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. - This appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 01.04.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, in Trial no. 160 of 2003 whereby the appellant was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The appellant was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 22.01.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. ASI along with HC Harjinder Singh and other police officials were patrolling in street no. 2, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar. They heard cries of killed killed from the house of accused. They rushed to the house. They saw accused causing injuries with kirpan to his wife Sukhwinder Kaur. Accused fled away from the spot. ASI took Sukhwinder Kaur in injured condition to police post. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Kaur along with her son Manjit Singh was sent to the Civil Hospital, Amritsar. On the next day, ASI went to the hospital to record her statement. Her son met him. After giving medical aid to Sukhwinder Kaur on 22.01.2002, she was taken to her house. He further told him that on 23.01.2002 Sukhwinder Kaur had felt pain in her stomach. She was brought to Guru Nanak Hospital. However, she died on the way. ASI gave information on telephone about the occurrence to SHO Swaran Singh. SHO recorded statement Ex.PW7/A of ASI Prabhjit Singh. On the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW7/C was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Investigating Officer went to the spot. He took into possession blood stained earth as well as simple earth from the spot. It was sealed. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. One witness was examined in defence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. 5. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. One witness was examined in defence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order dated 01.04.2004. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record very carefully. 7. PW-2 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh medically examined Sukhwinder Kaur on 22.01.2002 at 02.20 P.M. He noticed the following injuries on her person:- '1. An incised wound 3 x 1 cm on the right side of abdomen, 16 cms from the umbilicus at 9 oclock position. Placed obliquely. Wound is muscle deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Margins were clean cut. 2. An incised wound 1 x cm on the front of abdomen right side 7 cm above the injury no. 1. Wound was muscle deep. Margins were clean cut. Fresh bleeding was present. 3. An incised wound 7 x cm on the front of left leg in its middle, placed obliquely. Wound muscle deep. Margins were clean cut and fresh bleeding was present. 4. An incised wound 6 x 3 cm depth not probed on the middle medio lateral aspect of right forearm, 3 cm above the wrist joint, placed obliquely. Margins were clean cut. Fresh bleeding was present. 5. An incised wound 2 x 1 cm on the posterior aspect of right forearm 3 cm below the elbow joint, placed obliquely. Depth was not probed. Margins were clean cut. 6. An incised wound cm on the palmer aspect proximal phalanx of right ring finger towards the base of middle finger. Margins were clean cut. Depth not probed. Fresh bleeding was present. 7. An incised wound 1 x cm on the web of right hand near the base of right thumb. Wound was muscle deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Margins were clean cut.' 8. PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai conducted the post-mortem examination. According to him, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury no. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Wound was muscle deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Margins were clean cut.' 8. PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai conducted the post-mortem examination. According to him, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury no. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Probable time elapsed between injury and death was within 24 hours and between death and post-mortem was about 12 to 24 hours. 9. PW-6 HC Harjinder Singh deposed that on 22.01.2002 he was posted at Police Post Kot Mit Singh. He along with ASI Prabhjit Singh and other police officials had gone to Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Tarn Taran road for patrolling. At about 11.00 A.M. they heard voices from street no. 2, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar. They rushed to the house of Manohar Singh accused. They saw him causing injuries to his wife with kirpan. Accused ran away after seeing them. Sukhwinder Kaur was sent to the Civil Hospital for medical examination. 10. PW-7 ASI Prabhjit Singh is another eye witness. According to him, he was on patrolling duty along with HC Harjinder Singh and other police officials on 22.01.2002. At about 11.00 A.M. they reached near street no. 2. 11. They heard voices of someone shouting killed killed of a female. They rushed to the spot. They saw accused causing injuries with kirpan to his wife Sukhwinder Kaur. Some injuries had been caused before they reached to the spot. The injured was sent to hospital. When he reached hospital, Manjit Singh met him. He came to know that Sukhwinder Kaur died. He recorded his statement Ex.PW7/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he heard cries of the deceased from the distance of 1/15 yards. He did not record the statement of deceased. They tried to chase the accused. However, he managed to escape. 12. PW-11 Manjit Singh deposed that Sukhwinder Kaur was his mother. Accused was his father. His mother had fallen from stairs and had suffered injuries which were not caused by the accused. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW11. 13. DW-1 Lakhwinder Kaur is daughter of the accused. According to her, Sukhwinder Kaur was her mother. Accused was his father. Accused was his father. His mother had fallen from stairs and had suffered injuries which were not caused by the accused. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW11. 13. DW-1 Lakhwinder Kaur is daughter of the accused. According to her, Sukhwinder Kaur was her mother. Accused was his father. His mother was carrying mud to the roof of the house. She fell down and suffered injuries. She was taken to the hospital by her and by his brother Manjit Singh. Doctor did not admit her saying that there was no need. Later on when condition of her mother became deteriorated, she was again taken to the hospital where she died. 14. PW-2 Dr. Sukhwinder Singh had noticed as many as seven injuries on the person of deceased. All the injuries were incised in nature. These were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death according to PW-1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai was shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury no. 1. In his cross-examination, he had categorically deposed that it was highly improbable for these type of injuries which were present on the body of the deceased to have been caused as a fall from roof top of a house on the scrap. In case the deceased had received injuries by fall from stairs, the accused would have definitely taken her to hospital. The incident has been seen by PW-6 HC Harjinder Singh and PW-7 ASI Prabhjit Singh. There is no reason to discard their statements. The defence taken by the accused as per his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he was falsely implicated by his relations. However, he has not explained why he was falsely implicated by his relations. The ocular statements of PW-6 HC Harjinder Singh and PW-7 ASI Prabhjit Singh are duly supported by medical evidence. The prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. Police is directed to take him into custody immediately to undergo remaining sentence imposed upon him. We place on record our sincere appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant.