Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 4 May, 2011
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002
Date of decision:- 04.05.2011
Ram Kumar
....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr.R.S.Sheoran, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
A.N.JINDAL, J.
The accused-appellant Ram Kumar (herein referred as 'the accused') was put to dock under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife Lajjo Rani and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to further pay a sum of `5000/- as fine.
The factual matrix of the case is that the accused has three sons namely Rajinder, Man Singh and Rameshwar. Ram Kumar son of Chandgi Ram was their father. They all were residing along with Lajjo Rani (wife of the accused) in one house. Out of the three sons, Rameshwar was married. On 28.01.2000, he had gone to bring his wife Kavita from her parental house at village Mangali. On 29.01.2000, when they both returned and were present at the bus-stand, Man Singh (PW-7) his younger brother met him at 1.00 P.M. and told him that Ram Kumar-accused had killed their mother Lajjo Rani by causing Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 2 injuries with a Kasaula (a sharp cutting instrument). Thereafter, Rameshwar (PW-9) went to police station, Agroha and met Ram Mehar, SHO and told him about the incident. On the basis of his statement, recorded at 11.45 P.M., FIR (Ex.P19) was registered. Thereafter, Ram Mehar, SHO reached the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of Rajinder and Man Singh, eye witnesses, so also of Chandgi Ram. Thereafter, he prepared the inquest report and dispatched the dead body for postmortem examination. He also got the place of occurrence photographed and also got conducted the autopsy. The accused was arrested on 30.1.2000. During interrogation, he disclosed that he had kept concealed the blood stained Kasaula in a heap of cow dung cakes in his plot, located in village Mallahpur. Pursuant to this statement, he got recovered the same. On completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the Court.
To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Subhash Chander constable (PW-1), Suba Ram Head Constable (PW-
2), Krishan Chand Constable (PW-3), Shanti Sarup, photographer (PW-
4), Naresh Kumar constable (PW-5), Raj Kumar, ASI (PW-6), Man Singh (PW-7), Rajinder (PW-8), Rameshwar complainant (PW-9), Dr. Arun Gupta, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hisar (PW-10) and Ram Mehar, SHO (PW-11). Prosecution also tendered into evidence the reports (Ex.P29 and Ex.P23) of Forensic Science Laboratory.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 3
Learned counsel for the accused has laid much stress over the delay in registration of the FIR and the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. It was also urged that if the prosecution story is accepted as correct, then the accused being under the influence of liquor, as admitted by the prosecution, cannot be said to be in senses and could be extended benefit of Section 85 of the IPC.
To the contrary, Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. A.G., Haryana, has urged that this is the culpable homicide amounting to murder caused by the accused of his own wife, whereas eye witnesses are none else, but his own sons. Motive of the occurrence is clear that the accused was consuming liquor and was showering abuses on his wife, whereas she was preventing him from consuming liquor, which was not relished by the accused.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
In view of the direct evidence as well as the recovery of the weapon of offence, the case stands duly proved against the accused. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, the occurrence in this case took place at about 1.00 P.M. in village Mallahpur in the house of the accused. The witnesses of the occurrence are none else, but his own sons. The police station is situated at a distance of 18 kilometers from the place of occurrence. Man Singh (PW-7) being a minor, on seeing death of his mother at the hands of the accused, was not oblivious to go to the police station, therefore, he started for informing his brother Rameshwar (PW-9), who had gone to bring his wife at village Mangali. But, he met his brother on the way. Then both of them came to their house and informed their maternal uncle in order to discuss as to how should they proceed. Thereafter, they went to lodge the report to the Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 4 police station. Since in this case, the accused was none else, but their father, therefore, they must have taken sometime to ponder over as to how should proceed against their own kin. In these circumstances, a little delay of 10 hours cannot be said to be such that could invite any exaggerations. It is also well settled by now that where the testimonies of the witnesses are quite consistent on all the material points and are otherwise free from any bias or rivalry, then the delay in lodging the FIR falls into insignificance. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 622, has observed as under:-
"It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief- stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report."
In cases, where the deceased and the accused are related to each other and the witnesses are also their own kith and kin, then certainly sometime is consumed in pondering over the line of action, on which, they should proceed. Therefore, delay in recording the FIR, in these circumstances, is not fatal.
Now coming to the evidence, Dr. Arun Gupta conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Lajjo Rani. He found that the face was badly crushed from the frontal bone of skull i.e. forehead up to the Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 5 mandible. The eyes were badly damaged. The frontal bone, maxilla bone, nasal bone and mandible bone were fractured. All teeth were broken. The underlying frontal portion of brain was badly damaged. The face was having clotted blood. Rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs. Dr. Arun Gupta further opined that cause of death of Lajjo Rani was due to multiple injuries which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. The time lapsed between the injuries and the death was variable and between death and post-mortem was within 36 years.
Now coming to the ocular version. Both Rajinder (PW-8) and Man Singh (PW-7) are quite consistent in their statements with regard to the time, place and manner in which the occurrence had taken place. Earlier Rajinder Kumar was inside, whereas Man Singh was present outside the house, but when he entered the house, the accused fled away with the weapon. Both the witnesses have consistently testified that the accused had killed Lajjo Rani (their mother) with the kasaula. Despite the lengthy cross-examination conducted upon them, no dent could be created in their sworn testimonies, except for certain minor discrepancies, which may occur due to the passage of time. The defence counsel has failed to falsify the prosecution version as a whole. Their testimonies also find corroboration from the medical evidence. Rameshwar (PW-9), third son of the accused on whose statement the FIR was lodged, did not support the prosecution case, but he was not actually the eye witness to the occurrence. Therefore, even if he has not supported the prosecution case, it is immaterial.
Further, the recovery of the kasaula (Ex.P17) and shirt (PW-18) which the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence, also Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 6 lend corroboration. Further, the report of the chemical examiner also has confirmed the fact that the shirt, which the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence, was found stained with human blood.
The other question which needs consideration of this Court is, whether the accused is liable to be extended the benefit of the Section 85 of the IPC. No doubt, the accused was consuming liquor at the time of incident, but the fact that the objections raised by Lajjo Rani were not relished by him, shows that he had fully sensitized the feelings of his wife. He took out the kasaula and after causing injuries to his wife, fled away. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to hold that the accused had no requisite intention or knowledge and he was so much drunkard that he could not think as to what act he was doing. Section 85 of the IPC reads as under:-
85. "Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated, was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."
In this case, the accused had the requisite knowledge that he was drinking and he was not being served drinks against his wish and his state of mind was not such that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he could not understand if, the act which he was doing, was wrong or contrary to law. Thus, he is not entitled to have the protection of Section 85 of the IPC. The act of the accused is not covered by any of the exceptions to the culpable homicide so as to extend him benefit of any parts of Section 304 IPC. The accused did Crl. Appeal No.271-DB of 2002 7 not cause only one injury, but he inflicted number of blows. According to Dr. Arun Gupta, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hisar, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lajjo Rani, there were multiple injuries on her face. Her face was badly crushed from the frontal bone of skull up to the mandible. The eyes were badly damaged. The frontal bone, maxilla bone, nasal bone and mandible bone were fractured. All teeth were broken. The underlying frontal portion of brain was badly damaged.
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused had no requisite intention and knowledge that the injuries, he was giving, were not sufficient to cause death. As such, the present case cannot be converted to Section 304 IPC.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (A.N. JINDAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
04.05.2011
ajp