Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 May, 2011
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002
Date of decision: May 24, 2011
Inderjit Singh
.. Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate with
Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent.
***
A.N. Jindal, J Atrocities on the wife know no bounds inasmuch as the time how much has been passed, number of children have been born and what services she was rendering. The women would still remain the victim and under the dominance of her in-law's for the fear of break in matrimonial ties or for the sake of her children.
Present is the sordid story of a woman, having married 18 years back, blessed with three children i.e. two daughters and a son. The accused having suspected her fidelity ultimately killed her with kirpan. Consequently, he was prosecuted, tried, convicted vide judgment dated 21.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `500/- under Section 302 IPC.
The complainant Balwant Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') as well as the accused were residing at Amritsar. The complainant is the brother of the deceased Satwant Kaur. She was married to the accused-appellant (herein referred as, 'the accused') 17-18 years back and out of the wedlock, three children namely Jasmin Kaur, Jasneet Kaur and Gurpreet Singh were born. The accused having suspected fidelity of his wife has been beating and maltreating her. Even four years prior to the occurrence, he had tried to kill Satwant Kaur when Jasmin Kaur had Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -2- ***-
intervened and saved her mother.
On 17.5.2000, the accused after giving her beatings had turned her out of the house, whereupon, she stayed with the complainant for a month. At that time the accused was working as Preacher in the Holy Darbar Sahib in Amritsar and that with the intervention of the villagers the matter was got settled and she was left at the house of the accused situated at Darbar Sahib, Amritsar.
On 4.7.2000, at about 12 noon, the complainant along with his friend Atinderjit Singh had visited the house of the deceased. On reaching the house, they found the children, on the ground floor whereas the accused and the deceased on the first floor of the house. When they were just conversing with the children they heard cries emanating from the first floor. They went upstairs and saw that the accused was holding a naked kirpan. He had given two kirpan blows on the stomach of Satwant Kaur. When the complainant and Atinderjit Singh were making attempt to save Satwant Kaur, the accused, after causing injuries, fled away along with weapon of offence. The complainant informed his relatives about the incident on telephone.
On the aforesaid statement Ex.PJ made by the complainant, which was completed at 2.40 p.m., FIR Ex.PJ/2 was registered against the accused at 3.50 p.m. at Police Station 'D' Division, Amritsar on the same day. The Investigating Officer reached the spot, recorded statement of Atinderjit Singh, prepared inquest report Ex.PB, got the dead body photographed, lifted the blood from the spot and, after converting it into parcel, took the same into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK, dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination. The accused was arrested on 10.7.2000 when he surrendered in the court.
On 12.7.2000, during interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a kirpan in a room of his residence under the sofa set about which only he knew and could get the same recovered. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PQ, the accused led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the blood stained kirpan Ex.P15 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ/2. On completion of the investigation the challan was presented in the court.
Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -3-***-
On commitment, the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW1), HC Balwinder Singh (PW2), C. Harjit Singh (PW3), C. Arur Singh (PW4), Ved Parkash (PW5), Balwant Singh (PW6), Atinderjit Singh (PW7), C.Angrej Raj (PW8) and DSP Harbhajan Lal (PW9).
On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him to which he explained as incorrect. He has further explained that he is innocent and would file written statement. In his written statement Ex.D1, the accused submitted that he was not present in the house at the time of occurrence and he was told about the same when he was at the press. His wife had strong suicidal tendency and was suffering from depression.
In defence, the accused examined Amardeep Singh(DW1) who proved the bed head ticket of Satwant Kaur dated 30.6.1997. Dr. B.L. Goel (DW2), who had treated the deceased on 30.6.1997 onwards and denied if he had treated Satwant Kaur at any stage of time. No other doctor, who had made entries in the bed head ticket Ex.DA, was examined.
The trial resulted into conviction.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the appellant has tried to prove the innocence of the accused while contending that the conviction of the accused is based on the testimonies of two interested witnesses. Their presence is highly doubtful. Had they been present at the spot, then they would not have allowed the accused to run away. They would have taken the deceased to the hospital forthwith. Since they were shop keepers, therefore, there was no reason for them to come at the house of the accused during working hours. They being a chance witnesses, no reliance could be placed upon them. None of the children, who were admittedly present in the house, were examined. There is delay in lodging the FIR. Since the deceased was suffering from depression and remained under treatment even in the year 1997, therefore, she, in all human probabilities, must have Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -4- ***-
committed suicide. The accused was not present in the house at the time of occurrence and he came to know about the incident later on.
To the contrary, Mr. H.S. Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has urged that there is no delay in lodging the FIR and delay, if any, stands explained. Mere sending special report to the Illaqa Magistrate is no ground to discard the prosecution version. The presence of the witnesses at the time of occurrence was natural and probable. The deceased died at the house of the accused, therefore, onus lay heavily upon him to explain as to under what circumstances her live body was turned into corpus. The defence set up by the accused stands unsubstantiated.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we do not find ourselves persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, the same appears to be quite prompt one. The occurrence had taken place at about noon on 4.7.2000. The statement of Balwant Singh was recorded within two hours i.e. at 2.40 p.m. On seeing the ghastly murder of his own sister, some time must have been taken to compose himself as well as to console the three children born to the couple. Thereafter he must have gone to the police station. However, the police met him at the chowk of Shakti Nagar, where his statement was recorded. It must have taken at least half an hour to record the statement which means that he had informed the police within one hour of the incident. The FIR was recorded within 55 minutes vide DDR No.29 dated 4.7.2000 which reveals that it started at 2.55 p.m. and completed at 3.50 p.m. This fact cannot be ignored that the FIR was delivered on the next day i.e. on 5.7.2000 at 2.30 a.m. at the residence of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar (Duty). Mere this delay in receiving the report by the Illaqa Magistrate may be due to variety of reasons but in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, this cannot be considered as a circumstance for colouration or exaggeration of the prosecution version. Here in this case, the accused is none else but the husband of the deceased. He fled away immediately after causing the injuries and was not found at the house or place of his business. Ultimately, he was arrested when he surrendered in the court on 10.7.2000 whereafter he was interrogated on Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -5- ***-
12.7.2000 and got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. small kirpan of the size of 2' - 5" which is normally used by the Sewadars or other workers of the Gurudwara. It may be re-iterated that the accused was also a sewadar/ preacher in the Gurudwara.
Now coming to the other argument that the medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular version. Dr. Amarjit Singh Junior Resident Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (PW1), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Satwant Kaur observed the following injuries on her person :-
1. 2 x 1 cms incised stab wound present on front of abdomen in lower epigasric region, 9.5 cms away and at .12 O' clock position from umbilicus. Clotted blood present.
2. 1 x 0.8 cms incised wound present on front of abdomen in lower epigastric region, 1.5 cms below and lateral to injury No.1. Clotted blood present.
On dissection of abdomen : Two incised wounds corresponding to injuries No.1 and 2 were found present on front of peritonium. About 350 cc of fluid and clotted blood was found present in peritonium cavity.
An incised wound found present on front medial aspect of wall of stomach, communicating with injury No.1. Two incised wounds communicating with injury No.2 found present on frontal and posterior wall of small intestines. Stomach contained about 100 c.c. fluid and blood. Liver spleen, both kidneys and both lungs and pleura were found pale.
All the injuries were ante mortem in origin. The cause of death in this case, in my opinion, was haemorrhage and shock, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature....."
The doctor had also found two holes corresponding to the injuries in the abdomen in front of the kameez (shirt) of the deceased. The Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -6- ***-
doctor also opined that the injuries No. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Both the witnesses have also consistently stated that the accused had caused two injuries in the front of the abdomen. The holes in the shirt also confirm the fact that the injuries were caused with the kirpan, due to which the deceased had died.
The plea set up by the accused that the deceased was suffering from depression and she may have committed suicide stands belied by the evidence led by him. Had it been the case of suicide, then she would have committed suicide with the kirpan which she was wearing. The defence plea that the accused was suffering from depression stands belied by the defence evidence itself. According to DW-1 Amardeep, Record Keeper, Satwant Kaur remained under the treatment of Dr. B.L.Goel, Professor and Head Psychiatry. Dr. B.L. Goel while appearing as DW-2 has not uttered a word if he ever treated Satwant Kaur on 30.6.1997 for the ailment relating to depression. Both the witnesses do not state if the deceased was treated for depression or any sort of mental dis-order. Actually, Amardeep (DW1) has not proved any bed head ticket dated 30.6.1997, but has stated that the register brought by him bears the entry dated 30.6.1997 which entry is just one day prior to the occurrence. Any way, on the face of it, the entry which has been made just one day earlier to the occurrence, appears to be fabricated particularly in view of the statement made by Dr. B.L. Goel, who has stated that Satwant Kaur never remained under his treatment.
As regards the contention that the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful, it may be observed that the same lacks merit. The accused and the complainant have been residing at Amritsar . The relations between the accused and the deceased had become strained as the accused was doubting her fidelity. Just one month prior to the occurrence, in an endeavour to settle the matter, the deceased was left at the house of the accused by the complainant for her rehabilitation, therefore, the complainant in an anxiety to see the well being of his sister must have taken his friend Atinderjit Singh (PW7) to visit the house of the deceased. Balwant Singh (PW6) and Atinderjit Singh (PW7) were not the public servants. Atinderjit Singh (PW7) was running a factory for manufacturing electric motors, whereas Balwant Singh was doing trading in silver Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -7- ***-
ornaments. The nature of business which the witnesses were running do not necessarily require their whole time presence at their premises of business. At the same time, the house of the accused was also just 2 kilometers away and they could come back from the house within short span of time. Balwant Singh was not running a regular shop but was doing trading in silver ornaments. They may be a chance witnesses but their presence at the time of occurrence is quite natural and probable. Balwant Singh being worried about the rehabilitation of his sister was supposed to watch her well being and go to the house to take care of her.
The argument, that the accused caused injuries to the deceased in the presence of the witnesses does not gather any moss rather the circumstances created by the accused go a long way to prove that he created the circumstances and found appropriate occasion to kill her. It was day time. The children were on the ground floor, whereas he along with his wife and none else were on the first floor. The previous stained relations between the accused and the deceased and the allegations which the accused was levelling indicate that the accused wanted to get rid of them one way or the other. The anger which he was carrying must have been enraged to take her life. The accused never knew about coming of Balwant Singh (PW6) and Atinderjit Singh (PW7). The weapon of offence which the accused used, must always be in his possession as he was Granthi in the Golden Temple and was wearing the same as Gatra. The consistency in the statements of the witnesses, promptness in recording the FIR, recovery of Gatra from the accused and the injuries having been caused with the said gatra (kirpan) do not suggest a chance to condemn these two witnesses being interested or chance witnesses. These two witnesses were cross- examined at length but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies which may belie their version.
The motive behind the occurrence also stands established. Besides the testimonies of Balwant Singh (PW6), Atinderjit Singh (PW7) has also stated that on the day of occurrence, at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant came to his house and told him to accompany him for enquiring about the well being of his sister. The complainant had also disclosed about the dispute between the two and the allegations which the Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -8- ***-
accused was levelling upon his sister and about the sending of his sister to the house of the accused for rehabilitation one month prior to the occurrence.
We also do not countenance the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that none of the children of the deceased was examined to support the prosecution case which also creates doubt over the prosecution version. In this regard it may be observed that both the witnesses state that only they went upstairs on hearing shrieks and the children arrived there. Since both of them had seen the accused causing injuries to the deceased, therefore, their evidence was the best evidence and the prosecution never required to multiply the same. It is the quality of the evidence which weighs and not the quantity. The complainant being the brother and close relative of the accused would be the last person to replace him with the real culprit. At the same time, the explanation made by the accused regarding death of Satwant Kaur is most improbable, as such, non examination of the children of the deceased is not fatal to the prosecution case.
As regards the argument that as to why the witnesses did not catch the accused if they had seen him causing injuries also does not carry any weight. The witnesses went upstairs and were unaware of the act done by the accused. They in an anxiety to save their sister caught her. The occurrence appears to have occurred within a minute and the accused did not provide them time and he after causing injuries on the vital part of her body fled away, therefore, since the witnesses had no occasion to catch him, as such, this circumstance cannot be taken adversely against the prosecution.
It would also not be appropriate to concentrate that the only occupants of the house were the deceased and the accused as also their children. No other approach to the first floor except the stair case has been established for making access by any one else to the place of occurrence. Further more the death is also proved to be homicidal. In these circumstances onus lay heavily upon the accused to explain as to how else the live body of Satwant Kaur was turned into corpus. In the absence of any plausible explanation by the accused an inference would be drawn against Criminal Appeal No.793-DB of 2002 -9- ***-
him.
No other argument has been raised.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (A.N. Jindal)
Judge Judge
May 24, 2011
deepak