Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 2 September, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014
Date of decision : September 02, 2014
Gian Kaur
... Appellant
vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate
for the appellant.
Surinder Gupta, J
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 9.6.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr), in Sessions Case No.07 of 2013, acquitting respondents No.2 to 4 of the charge for offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
2. An FIR No.15 dated 12.2.2011 for an offence punishable under Sections 304/452 read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Kathgarh, on the statement of the complainant Gian Kaur. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.2.2011, at about 9.30 a.m. Gian Kaur complainant along with her husband and daughter was present at her house and feeding the cattle. Respondent Surinder Kaur mixed rubbish in the fodder which led to exchange of hot words between the complainant and Surinder Kaur. At this, respondent Prem husband of Surinder Kaur and her son Resham Singh scaled the wall and entered the house of complainant. Hari Singh husband of complainant (since deceased) requested Prem Singh not to use abusive language, in the name of his daughter. Prem Singh gave a push to the deceased who fell with his face towards the ground. Prem Singh sat on his chest while Resham Singh caught hold of both his legs and Surinder Kaur caught hold of the side of DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -2- head of the deceased. At that time Sohan Singh son of Dalip Singh and Gurdev Kaur wife of Balwant Singh were present. Gian Kaur raised alarm which attracted her daughter Kashmir Kaur to the spot and the respondents fled by scaling the wall of the house of the complainant. Santokh Singh and Sucha Singh took the deceased to Civil Hospital, Balachaur, but he died on the way.
3. On the statement of the complainant Ex.PA, recorded by SI Mohammad Umair Saquib, FIR No.15 dated 12.2.2011 was registered at Police Station Kathgarh for offences punishable under Sections 304/452 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents were arrested and after completion of the investigation final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial as offence punishable under Section 304 IPC exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was disclosed.
4. The trial court on finding a prima facie case for offence punishable under Sections 452/304 IPC, charge sheeted respondents No.2 to 4 accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined complainant Gian Kaur as PW-1; eye witness Gurdev Kaur PW-2, who did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile; other eye witnesses Kashmir Kaur PW-3 and Sohan Singh PW-7. Baldev Singh Saini who had prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PG appeared as PW-4. Dr. Manohar Lal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Balachaur, who along with two other doctors had conducted postmortem of Hari Singh appeared as PW-6. Santosh Singh PW-8 was another neighbour of the deceased, who had reached the spot and taken the deceased to hospital. Dr. Amarjeet Singh, Professor and Head of Department of Pathology, DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -3- Government Medical College, Amritsar appeared as PW-12. PW-5 HC Surjit Singh; PW-9 HC Hussan Lal are formal witnesses. PW-13 HC Ram Pal placed on file application moved by Prem Singh to DIG Ropar Ex.PW and report made on it by SP (D) District Ropar Ex.PX, as per which the matter complained of vide Ex.PW was left to be decided by the Court. Inspector Surjit Singh who had conducted part investigation in this case and arrested respondent Resham Singh appeared as PW-11 and the Investigating Officer SI Mohammad Umair Squib appeared as PW-10.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the statements of the witnesses, copies of which have been supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments.
7. The first question which draws our attention in this appeal is the cause of death of the deceased. Dr. Manohar Lal, who along with two other doctors conducted postmortem examination of Hari Singh has given the description of the dead body as follows :-
".... A healed scar present on midline of front of chest from upper end of sternum to its lower end near epigastric region. Infected wound was present on back of right knee, 1.5 x 1 x 1 cm with purulent discharge present and covered by small piece of bandage. On dissection of head scalp, skull, brain & membranes were found to be healthy.
On dissection of thorax, lungs & pleurae was found to be congested, pericardium adhesions were present , heart was grossly enlarged ( 15 cm x 12 cm), pallor present, on cut section pale area were noted, on dissection of abdomen, viscera was found to be healthy & congested. Pieces of both lungs, blood sample stomach with contents, pieces of small & DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -4- large intestine along with contents & pieces of liver, spleen & kidney were sent for chemical examination to the chemical examiner to Govt. of Punjab at Kharar, District Mohali.
Whole of Heart, pieces of lungs & pieces of Liver, Spleen & Kidneys were sent for histopathological examination at Govt. Medical College, Amritsar. Cause of death was not declared & it was to be declared after receiving the report of chemical examination & histopathology report of viscera."
8. After receipt of the report of Chemical and Histopathology examination of viscera, the Medical Board declared the cause of death as follows :-
".... cause of death in this case in our opinion was Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with acute on chronic Ischameic heart disease, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."
9. While appearing as PW-6 Dr. Manohar Lal has stated that in their opinion, death of Hari Singh was on account of heart disease. Dr. Amarjeet Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of Pathology, Government Medical College, Amritsar, on examination of Viscera of the deceased had given his report as follows :-
"... A sealed box sealed with 16 seals containing two jars recovered. In one jar heart was recovered preserved in formalin. In second jar lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys were recovered preserved in formalin. The gross and microscopic examination show that the weight of the heart is 650 grams. The coronaries were blocked. The wall was thickened and clacificied. Lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys did not show any pathology.DEEPAK KUMAR
2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -5- Impression: I found that there was evidence of chronic ischemic heart disease showing severe complicated coronary artery atherosclerosis with hypoertrophy."
10. The above medical evidence reflects that coronary arteries of the heart of the deceased were blocked, the walls had thickened and clacificied and there was evidence of chronic ischemic heart disease. There was no injury, external or internal, noticed of the dead body of the deceased and the doctors have found the cause of death as "natural".
11. The next point which requires our consideration is the pending litigation in between the parties. Gian Kaur while appearing as PW-1 had admitted that before this occurrence, Prem Singh had filed a civil suit in Tehsil Court at Balachaur to get the property of Gurbax Singh brother of the accused Prem Singh and deceased Hari Singh, on the basis of natural succession. Gian Kaur was claiming rights over the property of Gurbax Singh on the basis of Will. She has further admitted that the complainant party and Prem Singh were not on talking terms. There was yet another dispute with regard to 10 marlas of land which respondent-Prem Singh had purchased from brother-in-law of the complainant, namely, Mohan Singh. A suit was also filed by Prem Singh regarding that 10 marla land and he got the possession of that land through court. The litigation between the complainant and respondent-Prem Singh indicate their hostile relations.
12. The next point is delay in reporting the matter to the police. As per Gian Kaur PW-1, the occurrence had taken place on 9.30 a.m. on 12.2.2011. The deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Balachaur and they reached there in 15 minutes. The Police Station at Balachaur adjoins the Civil Hospital. There is delay of more than eight hours in reporting the matter to the police. Though the delay is not a sole factor in disbelieving the prosecution case and is irrelevant if the witnesses have no motive for DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -6- implicating the accused, prompt filing of a report is taken as a circumstance while assessing the truthfulness and authenticity of the prosecution version, but it cannot be accepted as a rule that prompt reporting of the matter to the police is an unmistakable guarantee that the complainant has not given a coloured or exaggerated version of the occurrence. In this case, the death had taken place in a natural way and there was enmity and property dispute between the parties. The delay under these circumstances assumes importance.
13. While examining the eye witness account of the occurrence, we find that the statement of Gian Kaur has been supported by her daughter Kashmir Kaur PW-3, Sohan Singh PW-7 and Santokh Singh PW-
8. So far as Santokh Singh PW-8 is concerned, he is a person who finds his place as witness in every matter for complainant Gian Kaur. He is a witness to the Will executed by brother-in-law of Gian Kaur in her favour; had appeared as her witness in a case filed by Prem Singh about the dispute of 10 marlas land which he had purchased. The complainant has recognized the services of Santokh Singh by stating "Santokh Singh supports our family from forefathers."
14. Gurdev Kaur who was examined as PW-2 had not supported the prosecution version and attributed the death of the deceased to heart attack. She has stated that the deceased was confined to bed and unable to walk. She was declared hostile. PW-1 Gian Kaur has made several improvements in her statement Ex.PA recorded by the police at the time of registration of the FIR. In that statement, she has stated that on receiving a push, her husband fell on the ground with his face towards the ground. While appearing as PW-1, she has stated that her husband on receiving a push fell on the ground with his back towards the floor. She has further stated that respondent Resham Singh pulled the legs of her husband, DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -7- whereas, Surinder Kaur caught hold of him from his hair. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PA where it was not recorded that Resham Singh had dragged her husband from legs. Kashmir Kaur PW-3 has gone to the extent of stating that clothes of her father were torn and some of the hair of her father were removed and fell on the ground. Neither torn clothes nor hair were taken by the police in possession, in order to support her testimony. Her statement that Surinder Kaur respondent caught hold of her father and pulled his hair was also an improvement over her statement made to the police. Kashmir Kaur PW-3 has stated that Sohan Singh and Gurdev Kaur came to the spot along with other neighbours while Santokh Singh has stated that he was already in the house of the deceased. Santokh Singh is a witness who has a soft corner for the complainant party and was under their obligation. Kashmir Kaur has stated that Sohan Singh had been tethering his cattle in their house and used to visit daily. PW-7 Sohan Singh son of Dalip Singh has supported the testimony of Kashmir Kaur wherein she has stated that clothes of the deceased were torn. PW-8 Santokh Singh son of Maha Singh is not an eye witness as he reached the spot after occurrence and taken the deceased to the hospital.
15. There are also significant discrepancies about the cause of occurrence in the statement of prosecution witnesses. As per the complainant, respondent Surinder Kaur mixed rubbish in fodder while Sohan Singh PW7 has stated that when he reached the house of Hari Singh, Prem Singh and Hari Singh were quarrelling about 'dher'. Santokh Singh PW-8 had stated that when he reached the spot, on hearing abuses of Prem Singh, he was told by the ladies of the house that accused Prem Singh had given a push to Hari Singh, as a result of which dispute started and the dispute was about over throwing of rubbish. Testimonies of DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -8- Kashmir Kaur, Sohan Singh and Santokh Singh rule out the mixing of rubbish in fodder. Sohan Singh PW-7 says that the dispute was over the heap of rubbish while Santokh Singh PW-8 says that the dispute was about throwing of rubbish. The testimony of prosecution witness, do not reconcile over the cause of occurrence.
16. As per Gian Kaur, the occurrence started with the exchange of hot words between her and Surinder Kaur and later Prem Singh and his son Resham Singh scaled the wall to enter her house. Sohan Singh PW-7 says that when he entered the house of the complainant Gian Kaur to tether his cattle, Prem Singh and Hari Singh were quarrelling over the dispute of 'dher' (heap of rubbish) and thereafter Resham Singh and his wife Shindo scaled the wall and entered the house of the deceased. As per this witness, Prem Singh had also scaled the wall along with his wife and son to enter the house of the deceased which signifies that even while quarrelling with the deceased, Prem Singh was not in his (deceased's) house. This creates doubt about the prosecution version that Surinder Kaur had mixed rubbish in the fodder of cattle. As per PW-7 Sohan Singh, Shindo entered house of complainant with Prem Singh, if so, it is doubtful that she could add any rubbish in the fodder before the start of the quarrel.
17. The medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the incident. As per complainant, Prem Singh gave a push as a result of which he fell on the gorund. Prem Singh sat on the chest of the deceased while Resham Singh pulled him from legs and Surinder Kaur caught the deceased from his hair. Kashmir Kaur PW-3 had stated that she had seen Prem Singh sitting on the chest of her father, Resham Singh was dragging him from legs while Surinder Kaur was pulling his hair. Sohan Singh PW-7 has stated that on receipt of push by Prem Singh, the deceased fell on the ground. Resham Singh started pulling his legs while Surinder Kaur caught DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.16 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-1278-DB of 2014 -9- him from his hair. In the medical examination no injury was found on the person of the deceased. In the event of deceased falling on the ground after receiving a push and being dragged, he must have received some injuries. This create suspicion about the testimony of the eye witnesses about the mode and manner of the occurrence.
18. Taking all the above facts and circumstances which have come in the statement of the complainant and the alleged eye witnesses coupled with the discrepancies about the cause of occurrence, the discrepancies in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place, the previous animosity over the land dispute and the medical evidence about the cause of death of deceased make the version of the prosecution doubtful. The trial court was not convinced that the deceased had died due to the push given to him by Prem Singh. The possibility of exploiting the death of the deceased to implicate the private respondents in this case appears to be main cause for the trial court while discarding the prosecution version.
19. On perusal of the testimony of the witnesses, judgment of the trial court and appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
20. This appeal has no merits. Dismissed.
(Rajive Bhalla) (Surinder Gupta)
Judge Judge
September 02, 2014
deepak
DEEPAK KUMAR
2014.10.16 10:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document