Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2014
Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009
Date of decision: 29-10-2014
Ravi Kumar ... Appellant
Versus.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SNEH PRASHAR
Present: Mr. N.S. Swaich, Advocate,
for the appellant
Mr. PPS Thethi, Addl. AG Punjab
...
1) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.
...
M. JEYAPAUL, J:
1. Accused, Ravi Kumar, has challenged the conviction and sentence as recorded against him in a case of double murder.
2. PW-1 Jagtar Singh was the Sarpanch of village Gobindgarh. On 4.8.2006, he proceeded to Mata Bhag Kaur Nagar, a colony located adjacent to Gobindgarh where migrant labourers were residing. Ram Sarup (since deceased) and his wife Kiran Bala (since deceased) resided in the house purchased by Shiv Kumar brother of Ram Sarup and accused Ravi Kumar.
Accused Ravi Kumar stayed along with his brother Ram Sarup. Ravi Kumar demanded some share out of the house. There was some quarrel between Ravi JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 2 Kumar and Ram Sarup on account of such demand made by the former. Ram Sarup approached PW-1 Jagtar Singh about five days prior to the occurrence and informed him that Ravi Kumar was demanding a share out of the house. PW-1 assured Ram Sarup that he would patch up the issue by his active intervention. On 4.8.2006, at about 5.45 AM, he was returning home from Mata Bhag Kaur Nagar. PW-6 Nidhan Singh met him on the way. Both of them proceeded to the house of PW-6 for taking tea. When they reached near the house of one Jagtar Singh son of Kundan Singh, they heard shrieks from the house of Ram Sarup. The door was found closed. Both of them climbed up the grills of the outer gate of the house of Ram Sarup and witnessed Ravi Kumar attacking Kiran Bala wife of Ram Sarup with a spade he possessed in his hand. PW-1 and PW-6 raised an alarm. Accused having abandoned the spade at the spot, escaped by climbing the wooden ladder and jumping into the vacant plot lying on the back side of the house of Ram Sarup. Kiran Bala got up from the bed and proceeded towards the gate. Thereafter, she fell down on the ground. Her two children who were present there, were found weeping. PW-1 and PW-6 went inside and found Ram Sarup in an injured condition. On enquiry, the daughter of Kiran Bala informed them that her paternal uncle caused injuries to her parents. A First Information Report was registered based upon the statement suffered by PW-1. Investigation was conducted and a final report was filed on completion of investigation.
3. PW-12 Dr. S.K.Sharma admitted injured Ram Sarup and his wife Kiran Bala to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, on 4.8.2006 and gave them treatment. On the person of Kiran Bala, he found an incised wound 4 inch x 1 inch bone deep with bleeding on the right occipital region and an incised wound 3½ inch JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 3 x ¾ inch muscle deep below right angle of the jaw with bleeding. On the person of Ram Sarup, he also noticed incised wounds on the left cheek, right front of the head, right side of the head, right side of the chest, right upper arm and front upper part of right arm besides swelling around the right upper arm. In his opinion, those injuries would have been caused with a weapon 'spade'.
4. PW-13 Dr. Gursharan Singh Gill spoke about the admission of Kiran Bala to G.K.Hospital, Ludhiana, and the treatment provided to her from 4.8.2006 to 11.8.2006. PW-11 Dr. Savinder Singh had given treatment to Ram Sarup from 4.8.2006 to 17.8.2006. Kiran Bala had died on 11.8.2006 while Ram Sarup died on 17.8.2006.
5. PW-4 Dr. R.K. Sharma conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kiran Bala on 11.8.2006 and PW-2 Dr. Karamvir Goel conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Sarup on 18.8.2006. They have given similar opinion that both of them would have died as a result of septicaemia which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All injuries were found ante-mortem in nature.
6. Accused was arrested. A hammer broken into two parts was recovered at the instance of the accused on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by him. The Investigating Official thereafter laid a final report as against the accused.
7. Totally, 13 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution.
8. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances spoken to by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution and claimed that he was innocent. He has further contended JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 4 that he was working in the field of Jagtar Singh who had not paid him the wages for the last about 7n months. As he demanded wages from Jagtar Singh, he was falsely implicated in the case.
9. PW-1 Jagtar Singh and PW-6 Nidhan Singh are the star witnesses in this case. Both of them have spoken in one voice that when they were proceeding to the house of PW-6 for taking tea, they heard shrieks from the house of Ram Sarup. They scaled the iron gate and witnessed the accused attacking his sister-in-law Kiran Bala with a spade. After the accused had run away leaving the spade at the scene of occurrence, Kiran Bala came out of the house and fell down. Ram Sarup was also found with bleeding injuries. Both of them were just murmuring, unable to speak. The medical evidence also would go to show that both of them having slipped into coma, did not recover at all.
10. PW-1 also has cogently spoken about the motive part of the case projected by the prosecution. Accused in fact demanded a share in the property where Ram Sarup was living with his wife and children. About five days prior to the occurrence, Ram Sarup complained in this regard to PW-1 who was Sarpanch of the village who in turn assured him that he would intervene and patch up the dispute. PW-1 and PW-6 also have categorically deposed that the accused was in fact staying in the house of the deceased.
11. The medical evidence would go to establish that deceased Ram Sarup and Kiran Bala who had received incised wounds with a weapon like Spade, had succumbed to the same.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that it was a blind murder. PW-1 and PW-6 had been planted as eye witnesses in JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 5 case of a double murder.
13. PW-1 and PW-6 were not strangers to the place of occurrence. The residence of PW-6 was located about 200 yards from the house of the deceased. PW-1 was found to be Sarpanch of the village. Their version that at about 5.45 AM they just passed through the house of the deceased for the purpose of taking tea at the house of PW-6 is found to be acceptable.
14. Coming to the motive part of the case projected by the prosecution, PW-1 has deposed that the property in occupation of Ram Sarup was purchased by Shiv Kumar brother of Ram Sarup and Ravi Kumar from one Kashmir Singh but Ram Sarup was allowed to reside in the house. A share was demanded by the accused from that house and as Ram Sarup objected to it, the said occurrence took place, as deposed by PW-1. But Exhibit PR, the sale- deed produced by the prosecution, would go to establish that the property was in fact purchased in the name of Kiran Bala wife of Ram Sarup. Ram Sarup had attested the sale-deed in the name of his wife.
15. In the above factual context, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that PW-1 has not come out with a truthful version. Further, the accused would not have ventured to claim any share in the property standing in the name of his sister-in-law. The fact remains that the property stands in the name of Kiran Bala. Except the oral testimony of PW-1, there is nothing on record to establish that the property was purchased by Shiv Kumar from Kashmir Singh. The title to the property would have been wrongly traced by PW-1 but on that score the evidence of PW-1 cannot be rejected. PW-1 had been approached by deceased Ram Sarup to patch up the issue regarding share claimed by the accused in the property. PW-1 in his JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 6 capacity as Sarpanch of the village had assured Ram Sarup that he would make efforts to patch up the claim made by the accused.
16. It is in evidence that the accused had resided along with the deceased. No wonder, he had claimed a share in the property. Therefore, we do not entertain any doubt about the motive part of the case projected by the prosecution.
17. PW-1 and PW-6 have deposed that the accused having abandoned the spade at the spot, ran away through a vacant site on the back side of the house fo Ram Sarup. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the accused ran away empty-handed. But unfortunately, the prosecution has come out with a case on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the accused that a broken hammer into two parts was recovered at the instance of the accused. Such a recovery of hammer as projected by the prosecution is found to be doubtful more especially in the face of evidence of PW-1 and PW-6.
18. In a case based upon ocular testimony, even non recovery of the weapon of offence does not affect the case of the prosecution. But in the instant case, the spade had been recovered from the scene of occurrence itself. Just because a doubt is entertained as regards the recovery of other weapon of offence, the case of the prosecution established otherwise through ocular testimony cannot be thrown over-board.
19. PW-1 was assertive that the accused was arrested in his presence and he also subscribed his signatures in the arrest memo. prepared by the Investigating Official. But the arrest memo. would disclose that PW-1 had not signed therein. The Investigating Official has deposed that the accused was arrested only on an identification by PW-1.
JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 7
20. In the above context, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the arrest memo. did not synchronize with the evidence of PW-1.
21. It is the consistent evidence of PW-1 and Investigating Official in this case that PW-1 was present and only on his identification, the accused was arrested. The fact that he had not subscribed his signatures as a witness to the arrest memo. does not make any dent in the case of the prosecution.
22. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would then submit that the neighbours would have been alerted by the shrieks emanated from the house of Ram Sarup. It is to be seen that the accused had mercilessly attacked his brother and sister-in-law by closing the door. PW-1 and PW-6 could hear the shrieks from the house of Ram Sarup only when they were passing through the road near the house of deceased Ram Sarup. If it was a broad day-light, shrieks of course would have attracted other neighbours as well. No wonder, the neighbours had gathered on an alarm raised by PW-1 and PW-6.
23. The occurrence had taken place at about 5.45 AM but injured Ram Sarup and his wife Kiran Bala were taken to the hospital at 8 AM through the Highway Ambulance. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit in the above context that PW-1 and PW-6 would have taken the injured to the hospital without any loss of time, had they been present at 5.45 AM at the house of the injured.
24. The head of the family and his wife were writhing in pain. They had also become totally immobile. Only the children of tender age were found in the house. They were also profusely weeping. A vehicle was to be arranged for transporting both the injured to hospital. Within 2 hours and 15 JAGJIT SINGH 2014.11.11 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document High Court, Chandigarh Cr. A-D 612-DB of 2009 8 minutes both the injured had been transported with the help of a Highway Ambulance to the hospital located about 6 kms. away. Therefore, in our considered view, such a delay in admitting the injured to the hospital does not throw any doubt on the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-6.
25. For all these reasons, in our considered view, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the double murder he committed. Therefore, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appeal is dismissed.
( M. JEYAPAUL )
JUDGE
( SNEH PRASHAR )
October 29, 2014 JUDGE
JS
JAGJIT SINGH
2014.11.11 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity y of this document
High Court, Chandigarh