Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009
Date of Decision: July 30, 2012
Surinder Kumar
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Jasminder Singh Thind, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms.Ritu Punj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 19.12.2008/02.01.2009, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
The prosecution story in brief is that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of Kanta Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -2- Rani, which she has given to SI Jatinder Singh, P.S. City Jalalabad at about 11.30 A.M. on 27.04.2006. In her statement, she stated that she has four children (two daughters and two sons). Her eldest daughter is Rekha, younger to her is Rajni, next is son Rahul and younger to him is Prince. Both of her daughters are married. Her husband Surinder Kumar is a private worker working in a watch company and is habitual drinker. He consumes liquor daily and use to give filthy abuses and beatings and use to extend threats that after finishing her (Kanta Rani), he would end his life after consuming something. She further stated that she along with her family resides in the house of Prem Dry Cleaner after taking it on rent. On that day, i.e. 27.04.2006, in the morning her husband Surinder Kumar- appellant arose early and went outside. Thereafter, she also came outside in the courtyard and laid on the cot as she was not feeling well. When her husband came back home, he was having a steel jug. Immediately, on his coming, he poured petrol on her and set her on fire. She raised alarm mar-ditta mar-ditta. On hearing alarm, her son Rahul, who was sleeping inside, came outside to respond. Thereafter, Surinder Kumar-appellant fled away along with steel Jug. In the meantime, their landlord Prem and his wife Darshana came in the chobara. They helped her son Rahul in extinguishing fire. After arranging conveyance, her son Rahul rushed her to the Civil Hospital, Jalalabad and got her admitted there for treatment. The motive behind the occurrence is that her husband is a habitual drinker and she use to restrain him from taking liquor, so in order to Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -3- kill her, he poured petrol on her and set her ablaze.
When injured Kanta Rani was admitted in the hospital, then Doctor sent ruqa to police station, on which SI Jatinder Singh along with HC Shamsher Singh, PHC Wanzar Singh reached Civil Hospital, Jalalabad and sought written opinion about the injured Kanta Rani and doctor declared aforesaid injured fit to make statement. The statement of Kanta Rani was got recorded which was read over to her (complainant) and she put her signatures in Hindi on the statement after admitting the same to be correct. Ruqa was sent to police station for registration of a case and the FIR was registered at 11.45 A.M. under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, SI Jatinder Singh along with Rahul reached at the spot and investigated the place of occurrence and took burnt clothes of Kanta and nawar of the burnt cot, pillow into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P-7. Photographs were also taken at the spot. SI Jatinder Singh then prepared rough site plan Ex.P-19 and recorded statements of the witnesses.
On 02.05.2006 at about 7.00 P.M., Kanta Rani succumbed to burn injuries at PGI, Chandigarh.
On 03.05.2006, the investigation of this case was entrusted to ASI Manjit Singh and on that day he reached PGI, Chandigarh along with other police officials. On reaching there, he prepared inquest report Ex.P-9 on the dead body of Kanta Rani. Sanjeev Soni and Sukhdev Soni identified the dead body and then post mortem examination was conducted in PGI, Chandigarh. On Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -4- 03.05.2006 at 11.00 A.M. Dr.Dalbir Singh conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Kanta Rani along with Dr.Vishal, the then Senior Resident of the Department. Doctors found that 60% burnt area was showing yellowish green foul smell pus formation with un-healthy granulation tissues. Walls ribs and cartilages were NAD except that skin and fascia burnt off at places and thoracic cavity containing 690 cc of light coloured fluid. Lungs were congested and were showing patchy consolidation exuding yellowish pus. So all other organs were congested. The cause of death of the deceased in the opinion of the doctor was septicemic shock due to burns, as described, which were ante mortem in nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was about five days as per police papers and between death and post mortem examination was sixteen hours as calculated. After post mortem, body of Kanta Rani-deceased was handed over to her relatives.
On 04.05.2006, accused-appellant Surinder Kumar was arrested by ASI Manjit Singh. On 05.05.2006, on interrogation, accused-appellant suffered disclosure statement that he had kept concealed the steel Jug and one match box used by him, which was kept on the roof top of his house and he can recover the same. The disclosure statement of the accused-appellant Ex.P-10 was recorded on which he put his signatures and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, ASI Manjit Singh got recovered steel Jug and match box, which was taken into police possession in a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex.P11. Thereafter, rough site plan of the place of Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -5- recovery was prepared and statement of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. Finding prima facie case, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Rahul son of Surinder Kumar (accused-appellant). He mainly deposed as per prosecution version. No PW was marked as PW-2. PW-3 Dr.Parveen Kumar Garg mainly deposed that on 27.04.2006, Kanta Rani wife of Surinder Kumar was brought with burn injuries and he sent information to police station City Jalalabad vide ruqa Ex.P-1. On the same day, SI Jatinder Singh, moved an application to obtain opinion regarding fitness of Kanta Rani and he (PW-3) declared the injured fit to make statement vide endorsement Ex.P-2. On the same day, the patient was referred due to serious burn injuries. PW-4 Keshav Verma also mainly deposed regarding the occurrence. He deposed that on hearing shrieks coming from upper portion of his sister's house, he went on the roof and saw her sister on fire and his maternal nephew PW-1 Rahul was trying to extinguish her with the help of pillow. Prem landlord of house and his wife Darshana were also present there and they were also helping Rahul to extinguish the fire. Kanta was lying on steel pipe cot. He asked his sister Kanta as to how she got fire and in reply she told that her husband Surinder Kumar after pouring petrol, set her on fire and thereafter he ran away. PW-5 Sukhdev Kumar is not the eye Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -6- witness. He received information of the incident from his brother-in- law Keshav Verma at about 9.00 A.M. on 27.04.2006. He also deposed that he along with Ajit Singh reached at Civil Hospital, Jalalabad where his sister Kanta Rani told him that her husband Surinder Kumar (accused-appellant) poured petrol on her and set her on fire. He further told in detail regarding the statement made by Kanta Rani to him regarding occurrence. He also stated that SI Jatinder Singh recorded statement of his sister Kanta Rani in his presence as well as in the presence of Ajit Singh and her sister signed the statement made before SI Jatinder Singh after admitting her statement to be correct and true. He also identified her signatures Ex.P-3 on the statement of his sister and signatures of Ajit Singh. PW-5 Sanjeev Soni (also again marked as PW-5) mainly deposed regarding identifying dead body of his sister Kanta Rani. PW-6 HC Shamsher Singh mainly deposed regarding taking of articles from the spot on 27.04.2006 when he reached at the spot along with SI Jatinder Singh. PW-7 Dr.Dalbir Singh mainly deposed regarding the post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Kanta Rani. PW-8 Dr.Richard David deposed that he has seen the endorsement on police request on 19.07.2006. The endorsement is not made by him and also does not bear his signatures. The seal affixed on the said paper pertains to Mission Hospital, Ferozepur. PW-9 ASI Manjit Singh and PW-10 SI Jatinder Singh deposed regarding investigation of this case. PW-11 HC Makhan Singh deposed regarding handing over of special reports to Illaqa Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -7- Magistrate. PW-12 Vicky Bajaj is photographer who mainly deposed regarding photographs No.MO/3 to MO/5. PW-13 Sanjeev Kumar mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan. PW-14 HC Sona Singh is a formal witness who applied for bed head ticket.
At the close of the evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the correctness of the evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that his wife Kanta Rani-deceased has committed suicide when she was all alone in the house.
On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant Surinder Kumar was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record carefully.
At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas Kanta Rani (deceased) has committed suicide when she was alone in the house. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the dying declaration of Kanta Rani- deceased cannot be believed as Dr.Parveen Kumar Garg PW-3 in cross-examination has stated that possibility of being drowsy cannot be ruled out. He next contended that statements of Kanta Rani (deceased) and PW-1 Rahul have been fabricated by the Investigating Officer which is clear from the cross-examination that Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -8- Investigating Officer marked tick on plain paper and asked to get signatures of Kanta Rani (deceased) on that paper and thereafter, statement of deceased was recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that recovery of steel Jug is also doubtful in the present case.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State has argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. The dying declaration of Kanta Rani (deceased) on the basis of which FIR has been registered, itself is sufficient to convict the accused-appellant. There is nothing on the record to show that it is fabricated or Kanta Rani (deceased) was not fit to make the statement. Learned State counsel further argued that there is no evidence on record that Kanta Rani (deceased) has committed suicide when she was all alone in the house. Learned State counsel also argued that dying declaration of Kanta Rani (deceased) was duly supported and corroborated by the oral dying declarations made to PW-4 Keshav Verma and PW-5 Sukhdev Kumar and further the prosecution case is duly proved by eye witness PW-1 Rahul son of the accused-appellant and deceased. There is nothing on record that PW-1 Rahul (son) will depose against his father (accused-appellant) falsely. It has been further argued by learned State counsel that the recovery of steel Jug and match box also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. There is nothing on record to show that the statements are fabricated by the police or Kanta Rani (deceased) was drowsy at the time of making Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -9- her statement. Therefore, learned State counsel argued that this appeal should be dismissed.
As regarding first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that there is no evidence on record of any type to show that Kanta Rani (deceased) was all alone in the house or she committed suicide. There is no defence evidence produced by the accused-appellant to prove the same. From the evidence on record, we find that PW-1 Rahul is son of the parties. He is aged about 19 years. The occurrence is of 8.30 A.M. in the morning. PW- 1 Rahul is supposed to be present in the house and his presence cannot be doubted at the place of occurrence. Secondly, if Kanta Rani (deceased) had poured petrol and would have committed suicide, then there was no reason or ground to falsely implicate the accused-appellant in the present case. No evidence has been produced by the accused-appellant nor any reason or ground has been given in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for committing suicide by Kanta Rani (deceased). There is dying declaration of Kanta Rani (deceased), which is made to SI Jatinder Singh, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. Then there is statement of PW-1 Rahul, eye witness to the occurrence. This evidence is further supported and corroborated by the oral dying declaration made by Kanta Rani (deceased) to her brothers PW-4 Keshav Verma and PW-5 Sukhdev Kumar. All this evidence supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The occurrence is of 8.30 A.M. and she was admitted in the hospital at 9.00 A.M. by PW-1 Rahul after arranging Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -10- conveyance. This fact also shows the presence of PW-1 Rahul at the time and place of occurrence. As already discussed, no reason or motive has been given that as to why PW-1 Rahul will depose against his father (accused-appellant). Therefore, the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.
As regards next contention that statement of Kanta Rani (deceased) and PW-1 Rahul are fabricated by the police, we find that learned counsel for the appellant has only relied upon the statement in cross-examination of PW-1 Rahul where he was suggested that SI Jatinder Singh made tick mark on the paper and asked to get signatures of Kanta Rani on that paper and thereafter, the statement of Kanta Rani was recorded. This statement in cross-examination cannot be read in exclusion. To reach the correct conclusion, whole statement of the witness is to be read. In the cross-examination itself, PW-1 Rahul has stated that at the time of recording of statement of her mother, she narrated the incident and he has also narrated the incident to the police and accordingly statement of Kanta Rani (deceased) was recorded. He also stated that statement of Kanta Rani (deceased) was recorded after inquiring from her and from him (PW-1 Rahul). A suggestion was put to this witness that his mother was not in a position to talk when her statement was recorded, which was denied by PW-1 Rahul. Another suggestion was given that his mother did not make any statement and alleged statement of his mother has been forged later on in connivance with the police and this suggestion was also denied by PW-1 Rahul. Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -11- Therefore, in no way, it can be held that statement of Kanta Rani (deceased) and PW-1 Rahul were fabricated by the police.
PW-5 Sukhdev Kumar has deposed that SI Jatinder Singh recorded statement of his sister (Kanta Rani) in his presence as well in the presence of Ajit Singh. His sister signed the statement made before SI Jatinder Singh, after admitting her statement to be correct and true. This statement of PW-5 Sukhdev Kumar also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The statement of Investigating Officer, who recorded statement also supports the prosecution version. There is nothing on record to show that these statements have been fabricated by the police. Otherwise, there is also nothing on record to show any motive of the police officials to falsely implicate the accused-appellant or to depose falsely against him. Further, we find that PWs have consistently deposed as per prosecution version and there is no other version given by any witness. Therefore, question of fabricating the statements does not arise. Hence, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.
As regards next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that PW-3 Dr.Parveen Kumar Garg, has deposed that on the application of SI Jatinder Singh to obtain opinion regarding the fitness of injured Kanta Rani, he declared the injured fit to make statement vide his endorsement Ex.P-2. In his cross- examination, he deposed that a patient with 75% burn injuries can be drowsy at any time but in this case, Kanta Rani was not drowsy. The Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -12- doctor concerned at the relevant time has specifically deposed that Kanta Rani was fit to make the statement. PW-7 Dr.Dalbir Singh has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kanta Rani on 03.05.2006. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that a patient of such type can go drowsy at any moment and possibility of this cannot be ruled out. This doctor nowhere stated that when the statement of Kanta Rani was recorded by the police, she was drowsy or not fit to make statement. Therefore, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant has also no merit.
As regarding the disclosure statement and recovery of steel Jug, it is only a corroborative piece of evidence. The Investigating Officer has deposed regarding the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant and recovery of steel Jug and one match box in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant. There is already sufficient cogent evidence on record against the appellant. This recovery of steel Jug and match box supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Otherwise also, even if recovery of steel Jug and match box would not have been effected in the present case, it would have no affect on the merits of the case. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is of no merit.
Therefore, from the above discussion, we find that dying declaration made by the deceased-Kanta Rani to SI Jatinder Singh is voluntary and can be relied upon. Her dying declaration is also supported and corroborated by oral dying declarations made by her Criminal Appeal No.D-788-DB of 2009 -13- to PW-4 Keshav Verma and PW-5 Sukhdev Kumar. Further, these dying declarations are duly supported and corroborated from the eye witness account given by PW-1 Rahul. The oral statements are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and the investigation of the case. The recovery of steel Jug and match box also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The witnesses are truthful and reliable witnesses. There is motive for causing the occurrence as Kanta Rani (deceased) use to restrain her husband Surinder Kumar (accused-appellant) from drinking liquor and there is no reason or ground for PW-1 Rahul to falsely implicate the accused-appellant and to depose against him.
Thus, in our opinion, in the instant case, the prosecution has led sufficient evidence, which fully establish guilt of the accused- appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and the trial court, while relying upon that evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment/order, passed by the trial court, is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
July 30, 2012
Vgulati