Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Tarsem Singh @ Maddi on 9 July, 2013
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron
Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Murder Reference No.7 of 2012
Date of decision: 09.07.2013
State of Punjab .....Appellant
versus
Tarsem Singh @ Maddi ..... Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.D-789-DB of 2012
Date of decision: 09.07.2013
Tarsem Singh @ Maddi ....Appellant
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH
Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent in
Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 and appellant in
Crl. Appeal No.D-789-DB of 2012.
Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State.
S.S. SARON, J.
This order will dispose of Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 made by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for confirmation of the death sentence that has been imposed on the respondent in the murder reference and as also Crl. Appeal No.D-789-DB of 2012 filed by the appellant Tarsem Singh @ Maddi (hereinafter referred to the appellant) against his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short) and his sentence of death Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -2- awarded to him as these arise out of the same judgement and order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.
FIR (Ex.PA/2) was registered on the statement (Ex.PA) of complainant Rashpal Kaur wife of Daljit Singh resident of Saido Lehal, Police Station Tarsika presently Shri Ram Avenue near Indira Colony, Amritsar (PW-1). Rashpal Kaur (complainant) stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address. Her husband had died. She was doing domestic work. She had two sons and a daughter. Her eldest daughter Mandeep Kaur (deceased) was married to Tarsem Singh (appellant). Her daughter and son-in-law at that time were residing at Adda Kotli Surat Malhi, Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi. Mandeep Kaur (deceased) was aged about 22/23 years old. The marriage between Mandeep Kaur (deceased) and Tarsem Singh (appellant) was solemnized about four years earlier to the incident that had occurred on 15.08.2010. She had a three years old daughter. Her son-in-law Tarsem Singh alias Maddi (appellant) was a drug addict. On 14.08.2010 Rashpal Kaur (complainant) had come to village Kotli Surat Malhi to see her daughter. Her daughter and son-in-law used to often quarrel because her son-in-law suspected the character of Mandeep Kaur. On the night of 15.08.2010 after taking meals, the complainant Rashpal Kaur went to her room to sleep. It would be about 11.00 pm that Mandeep Kaur and her son- in-law Tarsem Singh (appellant) were quarreling in the 'verandah'. Rashpal Kaur (complainant) then heard cries of her daughter Mandeep Kaur in her room and then (Rashpal Kaur) she came Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -3- running out in the courtyard where she saw that her son-in-law Tarsem Singh alias Maddi (appellant) was repeatedly hitting Mandeep Kaur on her head with a water iron pipe. Within the sight of the complainant her daughter was drenched with blood and she fell on the ground. However, Tarsem Singh (appellant) kept hitting her with the iron pipe on her head. The complainant then raised an alarm of 'mar ditta mar ditta'. Tarsem Singh (appellant) then ran away from the spot along with the iron pipe. None else was present in the house except her grand-daughter Gagandeep Kaur aged about three years. The complainant became nervous due to the severe injuries that were suffered by Mandeep Kaur daughter of the complainant on her head and she died at the spot. The complainant had witnessed the entire occurrence with her own eyes. She informed about the incident in its entirety to her family, her sons on telphone as the people in the neighbourhood were not known to her. Respectable persons from their 'mohalla' namely Sardar Rachpal Singh son of Sunder Singh resident of Power Colony, Ward No.13, Amritsar along with sons of the complainant namely Sarabjit Singh and younger son Malkiat Singh came at the spot. The complainant after leaving her sons to safeguard the dead body along with Rachpal Singh were going to lodge a report with the police that Rajesh Kakkar SHO Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi (PW-6) met them. The complainant got her statement recorded with him. The reasons for the murder was that Tarsem Singh alias Maddi (appellant) is the son-in-law of the complainant and he had a doubt about the character of Mandeep Kaur and he used to quarrel with Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -4- her. The complainant heard her statement and accepted it as correct. Tarsem Singh alias Maddi (appellant) it was stated had a suspicious kind of nature. The statement (Ex.PA) was signed by the complainant which was attested by Rajesh Kakkar SHO Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi (PW-6) on 16.08.2010. Police proceedings (Ex.PA/1) were recorded by SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar to the effect that he along with SI William Masih, HC Sukhjinder Singh, HC Lakha Singh, yunus Masih, HC Dilbagh Singh and HC Dharampal Singh were on a Government vehicle bearing No.PB-06-G-2724 being driven by Jagbir Singh. They on 16.08.2010 were present at bus stand Kotli Surat Malhi in connection with patrolling and keeping a watch on bad elements when Rashpal Kaur (complainant) along with Rachpal Singh son of Sunder Singh resident of Power Colony, Ward No.13, Amritsar met them. The complainant got her statement recorded with SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6). After recording her statement in writing it was read over and explained to her. She signed her statement in Punjabi after admitting it to be correct which was attested by SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6). The said statement disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC. After reducing the statement it was sent to the Police Station through HC Lakha Singh for registration of a case (FIR). After registering the case its number was asked to be intimated. Control room was asked to be informed through wireless. After issuing the special report, the same were asked to be sent to the higher officers. SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6) along with his co-officials and the complainant proceeded to the place of occurrence. The statement (Ex.PA) was Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -5- recorded at Bus Stand Kotli Surat Malih at 10.30 am. At the police station FIR (Ex.PA/2) vide rapat No.12 at 11.00 am was registered on the basis of the said statement.
SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6) went to the spot where the dead body of Mandeep Kaur was lying. He inspected the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ex.PF). The dead body along with application (Ex.PB/1) was sent for postmortem examination. Injury report (Ex.PG) was prepared. The spot was inspected. Blood soaked earth was lifted and by preparing a parcel it was taken in police possession vide memo Ex.PH. Rough site plan (Ex.PJ) with correct marginal notes was prepared. The clothes of the deceased were produced before SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6) on 17.08.2010 which were converted into a parcel and taken in police possession vide memo Ex.PK. Tarsem Singh alias Maddi (appellant) was arrested on 18.08.2010. Arrest memo Ex.PL was prepared. He was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement Ex.PL/1 in pursuance of which an iron pipe (Ex.P1) used in the incident was recovered. Its sketch (Ex.PL/2) was prepared. It was taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PL/3. Rough site plan Ex.PL/4 of the place of recovery was prepared. The memos were attested by the witnesses. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
On completion of the investigation SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6) filed the police report (challan) in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala on 12.10.2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala vide order dated 7.12.2010 in view of the offence under Section 302 IPC being alleged which was exclusively Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -6- triable by the Court of Session committed the case to the Court of Session, Gurdaspur.
The learned Sessions Judge on 7.12.2010 charge-sheeted the appellant Tarsem Singh alias Maddi on the allegations that he on 15.08.2010 at about 11.00 am, in the area of village Kotli Surat Malhi intentionally committed murder or knowingly caused the death of Mandeep Kaur by giving blows with an iron pipe on her head and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within the cognizance of the said Court. The appellant it was directed be tried by the said Court. The contents of the chargesheet were read over and explained to the appellant in simple Punjabi which he heard and understood. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
The prosecution in order to establish its case examined Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) who is the complainant and mother of the deceased Mandeep Kaur. She deposed on the lines of her statement (Ex.PA) made before the Police. It is stated by her that on 14.08.2010 she went to village Kotli Surat Malhi to meet her daughter and son-in-law. They quarreled with each other but she did not know the reason. On the night of 15.08.2010 at about 11.00 pm her daughter and the accused quarreled. She was inside her room. On hearing the shrieks of her daughter, she came out of the room and found that the appellant had an iron pipe in his hand. He was inflicting blows with it on the head of Mandeep Kaur. When he came towards Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) she ran towards her room. Mandeep Kaur fell down. The appellant, however, caused injuries to Mandeep Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -7- Kaur when she lay on the ground. When the complainant raised a 'raula' (alarm), the appellant left the place. Mandeep Kaur died at the spot. No one was known to her in the village. She informed her sons and Sarpanch of her village. Her sons, her sister-in-law, her husband and Rachpal Singh Sarpanch reached there. She made her statement Ex.PA to the Police which was read over to her and she signed it in token of its correctness. In cross-examination, it is stated that the occurrence took place on the first floor and there are shops on the ground floor. The complainant had gone inside her room at about 10/11.00 pm after having her meal and she went to sleep. She took her meal alone. During the night no one came from the neighbourhood. The people gathered there in the morning. She did not ask anyone of them to inform the police. The police reached the spot at 12.00/1.00 o'clock. The daughter of the appellant was also present there. She did not give water to Mandeep Kaur. Her daughter once had gone to the police station but her complaint against the accused (appellant) was not recorded. The complainant did not accompany her daughter at that time. The police remained at the spot till the evening. She did not state to the police that the accused (appellant) was doubting the character of her daughter. Attention of the witness was drawn to portion A to A of Ex.PA wherein the said fact is mentioned. The accused (appellant) was present in the house when she took her meal. They went to the police station at about 2.00 pm. She did not know the names of the shopkeepers. She did not know what business was being run in the shop. She visited her daughter 2-3 months earlier to the incident. Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -8- She had reached the house of her daughter in the evening on 14.08.2010. No body saw her reaching there. It was incorrect that she was not present at the spot and was called by the police on the next morning. It is stated as incorrect that she was a tutored witness and had deposed falsely. The daughter of the appellant was with her. She did not know the number of her mobile phone.
Dr. Lalit Mohan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Batala (PW-2) was examined. He conducted the postmortem examination of Mandeep Kaur (deceased) and he found the following injuries on her person:-
"1. Two lacerated wounds 20 x 4 cm on the left parietal region of the head, other 7 x 5 cm on the right parietal region of the head. On dissection right and left parietal bones were fractured.
Meninges underneath bones were ruptured. Clotted blood admixed with meninges and brain matter present.
2. Two lacerated wounds 7 x 3 cm on the right and left frontal region of the head. On dissection right and left frontal bones were fractured.
Meninges underneath were ruptured. Clotted admixed with meninges and brain matter present.
3. Lacerated wound on the root of nose, underlying bone was fractured.
4. Lacerated wound 5 x 2 cm just below the right lower eye lid, underlying bone was fractured. Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -9-
5. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm in the wed between the right index and middle finger.
6. Abraison 1 x 1 cm on the posterior aspect of right little finger.
7. Incised wound 2 x 1 cm on the frontal aspect of left little finger.
8. Left eye protruding out from the socket.
9. Lacerated wound 6 x 4 on the middle of forehead, underlying bone was fractured."
In his opinion, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to head injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. In his opinion the death was immediate after the injuries were suffered. The time that elapsed between death and postmortem was within 36 hours. The postmortem report was Ex.P1 which was correct. In cross examination it is submitted that no x-ray examination was conducted of the injuries. Blood clotting it is stated occurs within two hours of the injuries and it occurs only on ante mortem. The deceased (Mandeep Kaur) may have taken her last meal within 24 hours of her death. He could not tell the exact time when the deceased had taken her last meal. He did not mention the time that elapsed between injuries and death in the postmortem report.
Balwinder Singh Patwari, Halqa Chhone (PW-3) proved the scaled site plan (Ex.PC). In cross it is stated that the plan was prepared as per instructions of the police officials. Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -10-
ASI Rakesh Kumar, PS Qila Lal Singh (PW-4) was posted as MHC Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi. He filed his affidavit Ex.PD which is to the effect that on 16.08.2010 a parcel containing blood sealed with seal 'RK', two seals and on 17.08.2010 a parcel of clothes of the deceased Mandeep Kaur, one parcel, one thread of black colour, nose pin, three market rings, sealed with seal 'RK' were deposited with him by SHO (PW-6). On 18.08.2010 an amount of Rs.50/- recovered from the search of Tarsem Singh was deposited with him. On 20.08.2010 a parcel of blood stained iron pipe 2 feet in length sealed with seal 'RK', two seals, were deposited with him in the Police Malkhana. He made an entry in this regard in Register No.19. On 02.09.2010 vide entry No.21 a parcel of blood stained iron pipe sealed with seal 'RK' vide rod No.160/21 and one parcel of blood sealed with seal 'RK' vide rod No.161/21 were taken from the Malkhana and handed over to HC Swaran Singh in good condition for depositing the same in the office of Director Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL-for short), Punjab, Chandigarh with a direction to deposit the same after getting the docket from the office of SSP. HC Swaran Singh (PW-5) deposited the case property in good condition and on 03.09.2010 handed over the receipt to him. So long as the case property remained with him (ASI Rakesh Kumar PW-4), he did not tamper with it. In cross-examination it is stated that he did not remember the time when the case property was deposited with him.
ASI Swaran Singh (PW-5) was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi. He filed his affidavit (Ex.PE) which is to the effect that on 02.09.2010 the case property i.e. one Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -11- parcel containing blood stained iron pipe with seal 'RK=2', along with sample seal 'RK' and application for docket through rod No.160/21 and one parcel of blood duly sealed with seal 'RK' along with application for docket and sample seal through rod No.161/21 in good condition was handed over to him by MHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-
4) after taking them out from the Malkhana for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh. ASI Swaran Singh (PW-5) on the same day got the docket issued from the office of SSP and getting the application numbered, on 03.09.2010 after reaching the office of FSL Chandigarh got deposited both the parcels in good condition with FSL Chandigarh. The sample seal and receipt were handed over to MHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) on the same day. So long as the case property remained with him he did not tamper with it. In cross-examination it is stated that it was wrong to suggest that he had filed a false affidavit.
Inspector/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6) deposed regarding the investigations conducted by him a reference to which has been made above. In cross-examination he stated that the house where the incident had occurred is on the main road, which is near the bus- stand. The Police Station is at a distance of 200-250 yards from there. There is a marriage palace and shops on the ground floor of the house where the incident had occurred. Accused had a daughter aged four years. He did not examine her. He did not record the statement of any shopkeeper under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short). Some portion of the pipe was uprooted from the supply line of the first floor. He completed the Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -12- inquest report by 4.30 pm and the body was sent at 5.30 pm. He directly recorded the statement of the complainant. Rashpal Kaur and Sarabjit Singh met him at the spot. They belong to Amritsar. It did not come in his investigation about the time they reached there. It was incorrect that he called the complainant from Amritsar and thereafter he recorded her statement and falsely implicated the accused (appellant). It was incorrect that he conducted biased investigation.
The chemical examiner's reports (Ex.PM) and (Ex.PN) were tendered in evidence and the prosecution evidence was closed. The substance of the evidence appearing against the appellant was put to him in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In defence the appellant took the following stand:-
"The prosecution version is false, concocted and has been fabricated after unexplained delay. Rashpal kaur mother of my wife Mandeep Kaur was not present at the time of occurrence. She was subsequently called from Amritsar and was planted as eye witness. She did not witness the ocurrence. Mandeep Kaur my wife was a lady of easy virtue and had relations with many people. I had warned her many times not to indulge in these acts. More so, as our daughter Gagandeep Kaur is growing up and it casts bad impression on her mind. I had brought this matter to the notice of her parents many times but to no avail. Even she had started indulging in these types of acts even during my presence in the house and I had warned that she should Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -13- atleast have some shame of myself and society so that I may able to save my face in the society and she should not indulge. On 15.8.2010 everything was normal. I went to sleep, After some time I heard a noise in the house. I went outside and saw my wife in compromise position with someone. When I reached the spot, he fled away taking the benefit of darkness. I in fit of anger got out of control and by grave and sudden provocation and heat of passion, I inflicted blow on my wife by up-rooting the pipe. My intention was not to kill her."
A perusal of the above statement of the appellant shows that he has taken a stand that he in a fit of anger got out of control and on account of grave and sudden provocation and heat of passion, inflicted a blow on his wife by uprooting a pipe; besides, he saw his wife in a compromising position with someone. Therefore, it is admitted case of the appellant that he accepts that he committed the killing of his wife though on account of grave and sudden provocation and in the heat of passion.
It may be noticed that the prosecution has proved from the evidence and material on record by examining Rashpal Kaur complainant (PW-1) mother of the deceased Mandeep Kaur. A perusal of her deposition shows that on 15.08.2010 at about 11.00 pm her daughter (Mandeep Kaur deceased) and the accused (appellant) Tarsem Singh had quarreled. She (Rashpal Kaur) was inside her room and on hearing the shrieks of her daughter she came out and found that the accused was holding an iron pipe in his hand Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -14- and with it he gave blows on the head of Mandeep Kaur. In cross- examination she denied the suggestion as incorrect that she was not present at the spot and was called by the Police on the next morning. She also stated that she was not a tutored witness or had deposed falsely. The only eye witness account is that of Rashpal Kaur complainant (PW-1) mother of the deceased Mandeep Kaur. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C as referred to above has accepted the fact that he caused the death of Mandeep Kaur with an iron pipe.
The question that requires consideration is whether the case of the appellant comes within Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. Section 299 IPC relates to culpable homicide. It is provided therein that whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of 'culpable homicide'. Section 300 IPC relates to murder and it is provided that except in the cases excepted therein culpable homicide is murder. The Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC is as follows:-
"Exception1.-When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -15- proviso:-
First.- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact."
In terms of the Explanation to Exception 1 whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Therefore, it is to be seen whether there was grave and sudden provocation for the appellant to cause the death of his wife Mandeep Kaur and this is a question of fact. As already noticed that the appellant has stated that his wife had relations with many people and was a lady of easy virtue for which he had warned her many time. He also states that this fact was brought to the notice of the parents of Mandeep Kaur. It may be noticed that none of the person with whom Mandeep Kaur is said to have undesirable relations has been named by him; besides, no one has been examined to substantiate the allegations of her having relations with others. It is also stated by the appellant that her parents were informed. However, the deposition of Rashpal Kaur Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -16- complainant (PW-1) shows that no suggestion or question was put to her that her daughter Mandeep Kaur (deceased) was of easy virtue and she had relations with others regarding which her parents including Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) were informed. In cross-examination it is stated by her that she did not state to the police that the accused was doubting the character of her daughter. The attention of Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) was drawn towards portion A to A of her statement Ex.PA where this fact was mentioned. Though Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) complainant did state in her statement that she had stated in her statement Ex.PA that the accused (appellant) was doubting the character of her daughter, it was, however, not put to her that she had relations with many others if so, with whom, and besides, she was of easy virtue. It is well established rule of evidence that a party is to put to its opponent's witnesses so much of its case as it concerns that witnesses. Therefore, it was liable to be put to Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) when she was under examination on oath that Mandeep Kaur (deceased) was of easy virtue and she had been informed about this by the appellant. Besides, the burden of proving that the case of accused comes within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC lies on the appellant in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:-
"105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.---When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or within Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -17- any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."
Therefore, mere bald assertion of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C which is also without oath that his wife Mandeep Kaur deceased was of easy virtue and had relations with many person as also the fact that he saw her in a compromising position with someone without bothering to ascertain as to who that person was or even name him, it can be safely inferred that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that he under grave and sudden provocation killed his wife, the burden of which lay on him. It may also be noticed that there is no reason for Rashpal Kaur (complainant) (PW-1) to falsely implicate her son-in-law in such a serious case and allow the real culprit to get away. The appellant had inflicted the grievous injuries on his wife Manpreet Kaur, which stand established from the deposition of Dr. Lalit Mohan Medical Officer Civil Hospital Batala (PW-2). He found as many as 9 injuries on the person of the deceased Mandeep Kaur. The FSL report Ex.PM after examining the exhibit contained in parcel A, that is, an iron pipe alleged to be blood stained has after biological and serological examination concluded that it was stained with human blood. Vide report Ex.PN the brown coloured material alleged to be blood lifted from near the deceased Mandeep Kaur concluded that it was stained with human blood.
The position, therefore, is that the appellant Tarsem Singh Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -18- had committed the murder of his wife Mandeep Kaur by inflicting blows with an iron pipe. He has taken the plea of his case being within Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, the burden of proving which lay on him. However, he has failed to discharge the burden, inasmuch as he has not brought any material on record to establish that his wife was of easy virtue or had undesirable relations with others. At the most there is a statement Ex.PA of Rashpal Kaur wherein she states that the husband (appellant) of Mandeep Kaur suspected that she was of bad character. This also is of suspicion only and suspicion cannot take place of proof. It is not mentioned by the appellant as to with whom his wife had undesirable relations nor any witness has been examined by him to show that she was indeed of easy virtue and had relations with others. The immediate cause of causing the death of Mandeep Kaur is that she was in a compromising position with someone. He has failed to bring on record or even mention as to who that person was and neither was any suggestion in this regard put to Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) or the investigating officer SI/SHO Rajesh Kakkar (PW-6). Therefore, the present case is one of committing murder by the appellant of his wife Mandeep Kaur which stands established from the eye witness account of Rashpal Kaur (PW-1) and facts and circumstances of the case. In fact even the appellant accepts his role of hitting his wife Mandeep Kaur in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The question regarding imposition of death sentence has been considered and after consideration it may be noticed that the manner in which the murder of Mandeep Kaur was committed by the Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -19- appellant was quite gruesome. However, it does not fall in the rarest of rare category of cases where imposition of death is warranted.
In Shankar Kisanrao Khade versus State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546, it was observed that the crime is important (cruel, diabolic, brutal, depraved and gruesome) but the criminal is also important and this, unfortunately had been overlooked in several cases in the past.
In Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC 294, the accused-appellant had been convicted and was undergoing sentence of 12 years of rigorous imprisonment for having raped his own minor daughter and for attacking her after release on parole in January, 2005. On the date of the incident, the appellant-accused therein caused repeated blows with a 'kulhara' (axe) on the vital parts of the person of his wife and daughter resulting in instantaneous deaths. The assault was committed in the presence of the his youngest daughter of the appellant-accused who saved herself by running into a room and bolting its door from inside, when the accused had proceeded towards her. It was noticed that (1) thirst for retaliation, was a motivating factor as in the past the appellant had committed rape on his deceased daughter, in which case his wife was a witness and he was convicted under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and moreover having been turned out from his house by his wife, he was living separately in a rented house with no means of livelihood and (2) the fact that he spared his other daughter, the accused could not be said to be such a dangerous person that Murder Reference No.7 of 2012 -20- sparing his life would endanger the community and moreover the facts of the case showed that probability of his rehabilitation and reformation was not foreclosed. Accordingly, the death penalty was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life.
In the present case too the probability of rehabilitation and reformation of the appellant indeed are not foreclosed. Therefore, in order to strike a balancing act between the nature of the crime i.e. act of murdering his own wife by the appellant and the individual himself who may have been under misplaced belief and notion that his wife was of easy virtue, it would be just and expedient to uphold the conviction and substitute the sentence of death with that of imprisonment for life.
Accordingly, the murder reference made by the learned trial Court for the confirmation of death sentence imposed on Tarsem Singh @ Maddi is not confirmed and the same is declined. However, the appeal of the appellant-Tarsem Singh @ Maddi is dismissed with the modification of the sentence of death to that of life imprisonment. Besides, he shall also pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.
( S. S. Saron ) Judge ( S.P. Bangarh ) Judge 09.07.2013 A.Kaundal