Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Madan Lal son of Babu Ram and brother of the deceased, made to SI/SHO CRA No.898-DB of 2003 Sakattar Singh, P.S.Shahkot on 09.02.2001, who reached at the spot. In his statement (Ex.PH), Madan Lal, who retired as Inspector from Cooperative Department, stated that they are seven brothers and that all are married and reside separately. His elder brother Dass Ram, aged about 65/66 years, who used to do labour work, has five sons and two daughters. All of them are married. His brother used to take liquor occasionally. He stated that on 09.02.2001 at about 4.00 PM, when he came back to village and reached in front of Gurdwara of village after doing his domestic work from village Bhullar on bicycle, he saw that Banni Singh son of Ram Sarup and Preetu son of Tara Chand, who were also labourers and sometime doing the work of selling illicit liquor, were grappling with his brother Dass Ram in front of his house, whereas Balbir Singh son of Harbans Singh was restraining them. In the meanwhile, Banni Singh and his nephew Preetu made his brother Dass Ram to fall on the ground and Preetu caught hold of his both arms, whereas Banni Singh twisted his testicles. Thereafter, Banni Singh and Preetu after dragging Dass Ram from in front of his house brought him near pipes lying in the corner of Gurdwara. After throwing Dass Ram there, both of them ran away from the spot while saying that they have taught a lesson to Dass Ram, as he was defaming them without any reason regarding their selling of illicit liquor. He further stated that he and Balbir Singh asked Dass Ram that what had happened on which he told that he earlier used to take liquor from Banni Singh and Preetu and today also came to take liquor from them. He further stated that while saying so, Dass Ram died. Thereafter, Balbir Singh informed Balwinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village, who informed about the occurrence to the police station through telephone. On the basis of such statement, ruqa (Ex.PH/1) was sent to the Police Station for registration of an CRA No.898-DB of 2003 FIR at about 5.45 PM. On receipt of ruqa, FIR (Ex.PH/2) was recorded by ASI Amrik Singh.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. PW-9 Madan Lal has seen his brother Dass Ram at about 4.00 PM on 09.02.2001. He deposed that accused Preetu caught hold his brother from his arms, whereas Banni Singh twisted his testicles. Thereafter, both the accused dragged his brother from in front of his house and thrown him near the pipes lying in the corner of Gurdwara. On the basis of such statement made before SI/SHO Sakattar Singh on 09.02.2001, ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of an FIR at about 6.15 PM and the FIR was lodged at about 7.10 PM. Meaning thereby, that in the first statement itself, which was recorded within two hours approximately of the death, the role of each of the appellants has been clearly mentioned.

The statement of PW-9 Madan Lal, brother of the deceased, is clear and categorical that he saw both the appellants and that Preetu immobilized the deceased, whereas Bani Singh twisted his testicles. PW-5 Dr. Bhupinder Singh has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Dass Ram on 10.02.2001. Initially, he deposed that the cause of death will be given after receiving report of the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PJ, he opined that the cause of death was due to vasovagel and nerogenic shock resulting into sudden cardiac rest, which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. He also proved the post mortem report Ex.PF. He deposed that the testicles were swollen and on dissection there was no bleeding into the testicles. Therefore, the prosecution story, as deposed by PW-9 Madan Lal, brother of the deceased, stands corroborated by the medical evidence given by PW-5 Dr. Bhupinder Singh for the reason that the testicles were swollen which could be possible only on account of its twisting in the manner deposed by the witness.

We do not find any merit in the argument that in the absence of bleeding, the death could not be caused as per the prosecution story of twisting of testicles. The Chemical Examiner has ruled out death by poison. There is no external injury which could prove causing of injury by any sharp or blunt weapon. The fact that testicles were swollen corroborates the statement of PW9 Madan Lal who deposed that Banni twisted the testicles while Preetu caught hold of the arms. Such oral testimony cannot be brushed aside only for the reason that PW9 Madan Lal is brother of the deceased. CRA No.898-DB of 2003 There is no evidence on record to show that Madan Lal was inimical towards the appellants. The presence of Madan Lal at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted as the FIR was lodged within two hours of the alleged occurrence. Though PW4 Balbir SIngh did not support the prosecution case in chief but admitted in the cross examination the fact of giving his previous statement and that he has effected compromise with the accused. Therefore, PW4 Balbir Singh has turned hostile not for the reason that he was not the eye- witness but for the reason that he entered into settlement with the accused. Therefore, we find that the statement given by Balbir Singh to the police which he accepts as had been given and the fact that he has settled with the accused shows that he has been won over by the accused.