Full Judgment
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 ....Date of decision:1.3.2013 Jeevan Lal ...Appellant v.
State of Punjab ...Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Ms.Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.....Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellant-Jeevan Lal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.11.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 9.10.2007, Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [2].ASI Naresh Kumar was present in the Police Post, Dosanj Kalan and on receipt of telephonic call, he along with other Police officials reached the place of occurrence in Village Kale, where Tara Singh-complainant got recorded his statement.
In the statement Ex.PB, Tara Singh-complainant mainly stated that his daughter Amandeep Kaur was married with Jeevan Lal about eight years ago and one daughter and one son were born from this wedlock.
Her son-in-law was not doing any job and had always been compelling Amandeep Kaur to bring expenses from her parents and had been beating her for not bringing the same.
The complainant further stated that he had also been helping her financially off and on.
On 8.10.2007, his daughter Amandeep Kaur gave him a ring on telephone saying that her husband Jeevan Lal was beating her and saying to bring the expenses from him.
She asked him to give advice to Jeevan Lal.
After receiving telephonic call, the complainant reached Village Kale in the evening and advised Jeevan Lal to do some job.
On 9.10.2007 at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant had gone to bathroom, then his son-in-law Jeevan Lal after bolting the door from inside, was pressing the neck of complainant's daughter.
His daughter was raising shrieks.
On hearing the shrieks, the complainant saw through the window and noticed that Jeevan Lal had thrown his daughter on the ground after strangulating her and after unbolting the door ran away outside.
The complainant further stated that he went inside and noticed that his daughter had died.
Then he narrated the whole story on telephone to his son Daljit Singh and nephew Malkiat Singh.
On their arrival, the Police was informed on telephone.
This statement of Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [3].the complainant was completed at 4.00 p.m.on 9.10.2007.
`Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PB/2 was registered.
Then the Investigating Officer ASI Naresh Kumar prepared inquest report Ex.PD in respect of the dead body of Amandeep Kaur.
The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.
The spot was inspected.
Rough site plan Ex.PF was prepared.
Accused Jeevan Lal was arrested.
The statements of witnesses were recorded.
After necessary investigation, the challan was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellant Jeevan Lal, framed charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Hari Singh, Medical Officer, who mainly deposed that on 10.10.2007, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amandeep Kaur and found the following injuries:- “1.
Reddish bruise 5 cm x 3.5 cm was present on the right side of forehead.”
2. Reddish contusion present on the right cheek and chin.
On dissection of the neck underlying subcutaneous tissues was congested.
Blood stained fluid came out from underneath the bruises present on both side of the neck.
One bruise was larger than others and placed slightly at a higher Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [4].level than otheRs.Underlying laryngeal cartilage was fractured.
Mucous membranes congested and underlying muscles were lacerated.
Meninges and brain were congested.”
The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to asphyxia caused by injuries described, leading to respiratory and cardiac arrest.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary couRs.of life.
The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem was within 24 houRs.In cross-examination, the Doctor stated that there is no possibility of the injuries found on the neck of the dead body to be result of hanging with the help of rope or a piece of cloth.
PW-2 Tara Singh-complainant mainly deposed same facts as per prosecution version.
PW-3 Sukhwinder Pal deposed that Amandeep Kaur was sister of his wife.
She was married to Jeevan Lal.
Jeevan Lal was not doing any work and used to beat her under the influence of intoxicants.
On 9.10.2007, he received a message on telephone from his father that Amandeep Kaur had died and he should reach the village of the accused with his wife.
At that time, the dead body of Amandeep Kaur was lying on a Co.in the house of the accused and during the inquest proceedings, he identified the same.
PW-4 Palwinder Singh Constable mainly deposed regarding getting conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amandeep Kaur.
PW-5 Daljit Singh is the brother of the deceased Amandeep Kaur.
He also mainly deposed the same facts as deposed by PW- 3.
PW-6 Gurchetan Singh Constable mainly deposed regarding delivery of Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [5].special report to Illaqa Magistrate etc.PW-7 ASI Naresh Kumar is the Investigating Officer and he mainly deposed regarding the investigation of the case.
PW-8 Kirpal Singh, Draftsman deposed regarding preparing the scaled site plan Ex.PH.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent.
He stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.
No defence evidence was led.
After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Jeevan Lal for the offence as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that firstly there is delay in recording the FIR.
The occurrence took place at about 9.30 a.m., whereas the statement of the complainant was completed at about 4.00 p.m.and there is no cogent explanation regarding the same which creates doubt in the prosecution version.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence.
PW-2 Tara Singh is the complainant and eye witness and has deposed consistently as per prosecution version.
His statement has been duly supported by medical Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [6].evidence and also by PW-3 and PW-5.
Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the death of the wife took place in the house of husband Jeevan Lal.
Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, Jeevan Lal is to prove the same as the facts were especially within his knowledge as to how the death occurred but there is no evidence produced on record by him to prove as to how the death of Amandeep Kaur occurred in his house.
Therefore, he argued that there is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed.
We have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State.
From the evidence on record, we find no merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
It is a case of direct evidence.
PW-2 Tara Singh-complainant, who is father of the deceased had seen the occurrence and has consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version.
As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in the present case is due to asphyxia caused by injuries leading to respiratory and cardiac arrest.
Therefore, the death of Amandeep Kaur is homicidal and has occurred in the house of accused Jeevan Lal, who was husband of Amandeep Kaur (deceased).Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the facts which are especially within the knowledge of a person that person is to prove the same.
At the time of occurrence, Jeevan Lal was present in his house and he is to explain as to how the occurrence took place and Amandeep Kaur died Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [7].in his house.
There is no suggestion to the PWs of any type to explain the death of Amandeep Kaur not in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.there is any explanation regarding the same.
We have also perused the cross-examination of PW-2 Tara Singh.
There is nothing in the cross-examination which may make his presence in the house doubtful or create any doubt in the prosecution version.
Further there is nothing in the cross-examination which may make his statement unreliable.
He is a truthful and trustworthy witness and his statement can be relied upon.
Further his statement has been duly supported by PW-3 Sukhwinder Pal, who is a close relative of the deceased.
He has specifically deposed that the appellant was not doing any work and used to beat Amandeep Kaur under the influence of intoxicants.
There is nothing in the cross-examination to rebut this statement.
Similar is the case regarding PW-5 Daljit Singh, who has specifically deposed regarding this fact but there is no cross-examination on this point.
The statement of Tara Singh- complainant has been duly supported by medical evidence and further there being no explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
We find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence.
There is no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case.
As regards delay, admittedly, the occurrence took place at 9.30 a.m.in the house.
Then as per evidence, Tara Singh firstly called his close relatives including his son by giving information on telephone.
Then on their arrival, the Police was informed on telephone.
Then the Police came at the spot at 2.00/2.15 p.m.There is only one accused in the present case and Cr.
Appeal not D-951-DB of 2008 [8].the death took place in the house of the appellant.
There is no other explanation by the accused as to how the occurrence took place.
Otherwise also, from the evidence on record, we find that there is no reason or ground to falsely implicate accused-Jeevan Lal and to leave the actual culprit.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
Resultantly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court are upheld.
(Jasbir Singh) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge March 1, 2013.
*hsp*