Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On 5.8.1995, at about 7.00 P.M. Appellant Sukhdev Singh and the acquitted associate Tar Singh wanted to demolish the culvert. A quarrel between them on the one hand and Gian Kaur and her son Sukhdev on the **** other hand, ensued. Gian Kaur had the apprehension that demolition of culvert would lead to the flooding of her house. The obstruction offered by Gian Kaur enraged appellant Sukhdev Singh who felled down her on the ground by giving a Kahi blow on the left side of her forehead. She was initially taken to the Civil Hospital, Sardulgarh. Therefrom she was referred to Civil Hospital, Mansa from where then she was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where she died.

4. PW-5 Hargobind and PW-6 Gulab Singh, yet another son of deceased Gian Kaur, had witnessed the impugned occurrence along with their brother PW-8 Darshan Singh. The case was investigated by PW-10 Inspector Balbir Singh and PW-11 ASI Paramjit Singh. PW-4 Dr. Dalbir Singh, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, PGI, Chandigarh had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gian Kaur and found the following injuries:-

"1. 10.5 X 0.10 cms partially healed wound with unhealthy granulation tissues present over the left frontal aspect of the scalp, starting from the lateral end of left eye brow going upwards and medially upto 6 cms above the medial end of left eye brow. Proximal 2 cm of the wound was gaping for .75 cms and under lying bone was exposed. Greenish yellowish pus was present over it.

8. We do not find any force in pleas advocated on behalf of the appellant.

9. There is categorical and almost unrebutted evidence that the appellant Sukhdev Singh did not like the objection taken by Gian Kaur to the demolition of the culvert by the former. As already noticed, Gian Kaur had the apprehension that the demolition of the culvert would lead to the flooding of her house. The present is, thus, a clear case in which Gian Kaur earned the ire of appellant Sukhdev Singh, who hit her forehead with a Kahi.

14. It also cannot be lost sight of that it was the appellant Sukhdev Singh who, in pursuance of a disclosure statement, led to the recovery of a Kahi. It also adds to the woes of the appellant in the context of accountability for having murdered Mst. Gian Kaur.

15. The testimony of DW-1 Babu Singh and DW-2 Nirmal Singh does not at all assist the defence plea of innocence. DW-1 Babu Singh claimed to have been told by Gian Kaur that she had not been able to identify the appellant. She allegedly furnished the information to Babu Singh when the latter visited her in the hospital. This witness was a member panchayat at that point of time. In his own showing, the Panchayat did not pass any resolution with regard to the innocence of the appellant. Neither this witness nor the Panchayat moved any application to the higher authorities against the false implication of the appellant in spite of the fact that he averred that he belongs to the faction of the appellant. If there was even an iota of truth in the statement of DW-1 Babu Singh, there is no reason why he would not have brought this fact to the notice of the higher police authorities.