Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdhian Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 May, 2012
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009
Date of Decision: 30.5.2012
Gurdhian Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA.
Present: Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
and Mr. M.S. Swaich, Advocates
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Jasbir Singh, J.
Appellant Gurdhian Singh was put to trial with an allegation that he has caused murder of his wife, namely Kuldip Kaur by giving her injuries on 9.8.2004. She died on 19.8.2004.
Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2007, he was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ` 5,000 with a default clause for the above offence. Hence, this appeal.
It has come on record that marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnized 17 years prior to the date of occurrence. Two male children aged about 14 and 12 years, respectively, were born out of the wedlock.
An FIR Ex.PB/2 was recorded against the appellant in Police Station Sadar, Patiala, on 10.8.2004 at 7.05 P.M. on a statement Ex.PB Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 2 made by PW.2 Gurdeep Singh (brother of the deceased) wherein it was stated that on 9.8.2004 at about 11.00 P.M., the appellant with the help of a wooden log has caused head injuries to the deceased. It is a case of the prosecution that on the above date, on receipt of a wireless message intimating that Kuldip Kaur has been admitted in Rajindra Hospital at Patiala, in an injured condition, PW.8 A.S.I. Sukhpal Singh went to the hospital. There he was intimated that the patient has been referred to P.G.I. at Chandigarh.
It is necessary to mention here that on her admission in the hospital, at Patiala, Kuldip Kaur was medicolegally examined by PW.4 Dr. Vishal Garg. This witness found two injuries on the head of Kuldip Kaur. PW.8 A.S.I. Sukhpal Singh went to P.G.I. at Chandigarh. On an application moved by PW.8, the doctor declared the injured unfit to make a statement. The Investigating Officer met PW.2 Gurdeep Singh and recorded his statement Ex.PB at 4.30 P.M. on 10.8.2004. In his statement, PW.2 Gurdeep Singh averred that on 9.8.2004 at about 8.00 P.M., he received a telephonic call from his sister Kuldip Kaur intimating him that the appellant was quarreling with her, upon her failure to give money to him to purchase liquor. PW.2 Gurdeep Singh and PW.3 Mandeep Singh came to the house of the appellant, settled the matter between the husband and the wife. After taking dinner, they went to sleep in the courtyard of the house. Kuldip Kaur and the appellant went upstair. At about 11.00 PM. both PW.2 and PW.3 heard cries of Kuldip Kaur. They went to the roof through stair where they saw the appellant causing injuries to the deceased with the help of a wooden log. On their Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 3 arrival, the appellant/accused fled away from the spot along with his weapon. Parents of the appellant and others were also attracted to the spot. A vehicle was arranged and the injured was shifted to Rajindra Hospital at Patiala and then to P.G.I. at Chandigarh.
After recording the statement of PW.2 Gurdeep Singh, the Investigating Officer sent a ruqa to the Police Station whereupon an FIR Ex.PB/2 was recorded against the appellant in Police Station Sadar, Patiala, on 10.8.2004 at 7.05 P.M. PW.8 A.S.I. Sukhpal Singh went to the place of occurrence, got prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes, got the photographs of the place of occurrence clicked, took into possession a piece of wooden batten and a blood stained dari from the spot against recovery memo. The appellant/accused was arrested on 17.8.2004. Initially, the FIR was recorded under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. Kuldip Kaur died in P.G.I. at Chandigarh on 19.8.2004 whereupon an offence under Section 302 IPC was added in the FIR. On interrogation, the appellant suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered a wooden batten on 20.8.2004 which was taken into possession against a recovery memo. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses.
On completion of the investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Vide order dated 23.11.2004, the case was committed to the competent Court for trial. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused/appellant as per norms. On 10.12.2004, the appellant was charge sheeted for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 4
The prosecution produced ten witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material, existing on record, was put to him which he denied, claimed innocence and false implication. It was specifically stated by him that his wife Kuldip Kaur had a fall from the stairs and received injuries on account of which she has died. He led no evidence in defence.
The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, found him guilty and vide the impugned judgment and order, he was convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in earlier part of this order.
Counsel for the appellant Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate, has vehemently contended that presence of the eye witnesses (PW.2 and PW.3) at the spot is not believable. He has further argued that there is no independent corroboration to the case of the prosecution. Both the brothers of the deceased were shown as eye witnesses. Parents of the appellant/accused and the children were not joined in the investigation which made the case against the appellant very doubtful. He has further argued that there was no motive with the appellant to commit the crime and in the alternative he has stated that even as per case of the prosecution dispute has arisen between husband and wife on a very petty issue. There was no intention of the appellant to kill the deceased. It may be a case of sudden fight in which injuries were received by Kuldip Kaur deceased. He prayed that leniency be shown to the appellant so far as award of sentence is concerned. Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 5
Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel. By making reference to the statement of eye witnesses (PW.2 and PW.3), he argued that the prosecution case is proved on record. Despite lengthy cross-examination, testimony of the above witnesses could not be shattered. He has also made a reference to the medical evidence on record to say that the death was caused in a brutal manner by causing injuries on the head of the deceased. He prayed that as the appellant had repeated the assault and the injuries were caused without any reason, he do not deserve any leniency qua the sentence as prayed for by his counsel. He prayed that the appeal having no substance be dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that no case is made out to interfere at the instance of the appellant. As per case of prosecution, injuries were caused to Kuldip Kaur by the appellant/accused whereas to the contrary it is averred by the appellant that Kuldip Kaur received the injuries when she has fallen from the stair. To support his above version, the appellant has not brought any evidence in Court. There is nothing on record to say that the case put up on record by the prosecution do not inspire confidence.
The eye witness account of the occurrence has been given by PW.2 Gurdeep Singh, brother of the deceased. He has specifically stated that he, along with his brother PW.3 Mandeep Singh, on getting a telephonic call from Kuldip Kaur, came to her house. The appellant was asked not to harass their sister regarding demand of money to purchase liquor. He agreed to do so. After taking the meal, both the above Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 6 witnesses went to take rest in the courtyard of the house. Kuldip Kaur and the appellant went upstairs for rest. At about 11.00 P.M., cries of Kuldip Kaur attracted both the witnesses. They went to the roof from where they saw the appellant causing injuries to the deceased with the help of a wooden log. A lengthy cross-examination has failed to shatter the testimony of both the witnesses. Both have very clearly explained the circumstance and the manner in which the injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased. It has also come on record that with the help of father of the appellant, after arranging a vehicle, the deceased was shifted to Rajindra Hospital at Patiala where she was medicolegally examined by PW.4 Dr. Vishal Garg on 10.8.2004 at 12.50 A.M. The above witness has found two injuries on the person of the deceased. Taking note of her serious condition, she was referred to P.G.I. at Chandigarh where she died on 19.8.2004.
Post mortem on the dead body was conducted by PW.5 Dr. Sree Nivas on 19.8.2004 at 4.00 A.M. This witness found the following three injuries on the person of the deceased:-
"1. Stitched surgical craniotomy wound, 25 cm long present in the left frontal parietal & temporal regions of scalp. Starting at the root of left pinna ending 5 cm above the inner of left eyebrow.
2. Stitched lacerated wound 3 x 0.7 cm bone deep surrounded by a contusion 5 x 3 cm present on the left side of forehead. 4 cm above left eyebrow, running in a direction parallel to the left eyebrow. Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 7
3. Stitched lacerated wound 6.5 cm x 0.7 cm x bone deep present in the left temporo parietal region, starting 9 cm above the left pinna. 9 cm behind the outer angle of left eyebrow going backward, upward and medially."
It was further observed by PW.5 Dr. Sree Niwas as under:
"As described in the injuries with extra bastion of blood in the scalp layers of frontal left parietal and temporal regions. Craniectomy bone defect 12 x 12 cm involving the left frontal temporal and parietal bones. Diastatic fracture of coronal suture, fracture of left parietal bone 6 cm long, multiple fracture of anterior cranial fossae pituitary fossa and middle cranial fossa. Bone defect covered by muscle flap, surgical mesh and gel. Underlying dura operated and partly excised, underline left parietal and temporal lobes. Protruding through the dural defect extra dural haematoma 12 x 5 x 0.2 cm present in the left fronto parietal and temporal regions. Sub dural haematoma present over both sides. Contusion and laceration of left temporal, parietal and left frontal lobes part of left frontal logs missing (surgically operated). Contusion of right temporal occipital lobe. Multiple intraparenchymal petechial haemorrhage present in white matter of cerebrum. Brain edematous and soft, grubbing of cerebral tonsils and unci."
This witness also noticed fracture of left parietal bone, multiple fracture Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 8 of anterior cranial fossae petitory fossae, middle cranial fossae and bone defect covered by muscle flap. Extra dural haematoma was also found present in left fronto parietal and temporal region. Craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force to the head was declared as a cause of death. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. It was specifically opined that injury No.1 was the result of surgical operation. Injuries No.2 and 3 were caused by a blunt weapon. In the statement of PW.10 Dr. V.K. Khosla it has come on record that the deceased was operated upon and a craniotomy was done for the head injury. The injuries received by her were dangerous to life.
The process of investigation is prompt. It started on receipt of a wireless message regarding admission of Kuldip Kaur injured in Rajindra Hospital at Patiala. PW.8 A.S.I. Sukhpal Singh went to the hospital and got a copy of the medical reports of the injured from PW.4 Dr. Vishal Garg. He was informed that on account of serious condition of the patient, she has been referred to P.G.I. at Chandigarh. The Investigating Officer reached at Chandigarh and moved an application to the doctor to know physical fitness of the injured. She was declared unfit to make a statement. PW.2 Gurdeep Singh met him in the P.G.I. whereupon his statement Ex.PB was recorded on 10.8.2004 at 4.30 P.M. It has also come on record that Kuldip Kaur died in P.G.I. on 19.8.2004. During interrogation, the Investigating Officer got the photographs of the place of occurrence clicked, prepared a rough site plan, took into his possession a broken piece of wooden log and a piece of dari stained Criminal Appeal No. 161-DB of 2009 9 with blood against recovery memos.
As per F.S.L. Report Ex.PX, both the above offending articles were found stained with blood. The recovery of a wooden log, on a disclosure statement made by the appellant, is also proved on record. Merely because the parents of the appellants were not joined in investigation is no ground to doubt the process of investigation. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the children were available in the house when the occurrence has taken place. If it was a false case, it was natural and expected from the parents and the children of the appellant to appear in Court and depose in his favour. But none came forward to support version of the appellant that the injuries were received by the deceased by a fall from the stairs. The very fact that on a trivial issue, two head injuries were caused by the appellant, to the deceased disentitled him to get any benefit from the Court. The appellant has killed his wife without any reason whatsoever.
In view of above, no case is made out for interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Sabina) Judge May 30, 2012 "DK"