Sulakhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1057719
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-04-2012
AppellantSulakhan Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 date of decision :04. 12.2012 sulakhan singh ...appellant versus state of punjab ...respondent coram : hon'ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh *** present : mr.suveer sheokand, advocate, for the appellant. ms.ritu punj, addl. advocate general, punjab, for the respondent-state. *** inderjit singh, j appellant sulakhan singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 09.10.2002, passed by the sessions judge, bathinda, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under section 302 ipc. brief facts of the prosecution case are that the fir was registered on the statement of dalip singh, uncle of deceased karamjit kaur, recorded at 10:00 a.m.on 31.07.2000 by sub inspector major singh, sho, police station maur. the complainant criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [2].mainly stated that after the death of his brother nazar singh, his daughter karamjit kaur, aged about 35 years was married with sulakhan singh. she was married about sixteen years back. from their wedlock, six children were born. last male child, who was aged about two months, was given by accused sulakhan singh in adoption to his mother's sister's son namely jarnail singh about twenty days ago. the child was given without the consent of karamjit kaur due to which there was a quarrel between karamjit kaur and sulakhan singh. on 30.07.2000, in the morning, his wife basant kaur, his sister surjit kaur and his mother's sister's daughter-in-law chand kaur had visited village kutiwal kalan and they were also quarreling at that time. they all went away after advising them. on 30.07.2000 at about 9:00 p.m., they received a message that karamjit kaur has been murdered by her husband sulakhan singh at about 6:00 p.m.due to darkness in the night, they could not turn up. on 31.07.2000, the complainant alongwith his nephew naib singh and other villagers reached at village kutiwal kalan where the dead body of karamjit kaur was lying in the courtyard of her house. motive behind the grudge is that sulakhan singh had given his son in adoption to his mother's sister's son without the consent of karamjit kaur (deceased) and due to that karamjit kaur was angry and was quarrelling with sulakhan singh. when complainant and his nephew were going to report the matter to the police, police party met them and statement of complainant dalip singh was recorded. ruqa was sent to the criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [3].police station on the basis of which fir was registered. then the investigating officer alongwith complainant dalip singh, naib singh and other police officials reached the spot. inquest report ex.pk was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. rough site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. accused was arrested on 05.08.2000. after the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the court. on presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under section 207 cr.p.c.finding a prima facie case against accused, he was charged for the offence under section 302 ipc to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. the prosecution, in support of its case, examined pw1 dr.deepak rai, medical officer, who mainly deposed regarding conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of karamjit kaur on 31.07.2000. he found the following injuries on her person:- 1. single bruise brownish in colour on right side of neck. lateral and above the adam's apple, three bruises on left side of neck, one below the other brownish in colour. lateral to adam's apple. it was dead body of 35 years old female moderately built, wearing kameez, salwar, red and white printed, dupatta, badami in colour around the neck, ring in right finger and coca in left nostril. postmortem staining fully criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [4].developed on back. rigor mortis fully developed, eyes closed, pale swollen and cyanosed mouth, partially opened, tongue tip bitten with teeth, teeth impression on tongue present. tongue swollen, hands clinched bilaterally. lips and nails cyanosed, blood coloured froth from nostrils and mouth present (from left edge of the mouth).pupils dilated, petechial haemorrhage on conjunctive bilaterally. fourth and fifth ribs on right side were fractured. in the opinion of the doctor, death in this case was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation. injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cours.of nature. in cross- examination, the doctor also stated that the asphyxia in this case is homicidal because there was impression on the neck of the thumbs and fingers and it cannot be suicidal in this case. pw2 asi kaur singh and pw3 constable gurwinder singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits ex.pe and ex.pf respectively. pw4 pardeep kumar, registration clerk of the office of sub registrar, maur, brought the record regarding registration of the deeds and deposed regarding the adoption deed dated 05.07.2000. pw5 parshotam dass, draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of site plan ex.ph. pw6 surjit kaur, aunt of karamjit kaur, mainly deposed that karamjit kaur was opposed the adoption. she alongwith basant kaur and chand kaur went to the house of accused sulakhan singh where they were having a quarrel regarding giving the child in adoption. they got the criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [5].matter settled and came back. lateron, she came to knot that karamjit kaur was murdered by the accused. pw7 basant kaur also deposed the same facts as stated by pw6 surjit kaur. pw8 dalip singh, complainant, mainly deposed as per prosecution version. pw9 gagandeep, daughter of sulakhan singh, aged about 7 years.who is eye-witness to the occurrence, deposed regarding the occurrence and stated that her father sulakhan gave her younger brother to his cousin. her mother used to object in giving the child in adoption but the accused gave her brother in adoption. about 1½ years ago, she was present in her house. her father and brother were also present in the house. her father put his thumb on the neck of her mother and sat on her and killed her. she concealed herself in the bathroom. she stated above facts to the police. pw10 sub inspector major singh is the investigating officer. he deposed regarding the investigation of the case. at the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 cr.p.c.and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. the accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. he also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. he went to cut the fodder in the field. his daughter babli came and informed him that her mother was lying fallen in the courtyard. he was arrested by the police on the same day i.e.30.07.2000. the child was given in adoption with the consent of karamjit kaur. photographs of adoption were taken in criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [6].the gurudwara. at that time, respectable people of the village were also present. adoption deed was prepared which was thumb marked by karamjit kaur. there was no dispute regarding the adoption at any stage. he was not present at the time when karamjit kaur died. in defence, the accused examined dw1 jarnail singh, who has taken the minot child in adoption. he mainly deposed regarding the execution of adoption deed and the fact that the child was taken in adoption with the consent of karamjit kaur (deceased) and accused sulakhan singh and there was no dispute between them before or after the adoption of the child. dw2 jalour singh mainly stated that accused sulakhan singh used to come to his field in order to take fodder. on the day of occurrence, he had come in his field at about 4:30 p.m.daughter of accused had come to him in his field and told that her mother was lying in the courtyard of the house. thereafter, accused went to his house. dw3 kaur singh, who is neighbour, mainly deposed that there was no quarrel between karamjit kaur and the accused. gagandeep kaur, daughter of accused, is living in the house of her maternal grand-father. child was given in adoption by the accused and his wife to jarnail singh of their own accord. the trial court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no motive for causing the criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [7].occurrence. a legal adoption deed was executed with the consent of karamjit kaur. he further contended that the accused at the time of occurrence was in the field and karamjit kaur fell down and the daughter of accused informed the accused in the field, as deposed by the dws. learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statement of child witness cannot be believed as she is residing with her maternal grand parents and is a tutored witness. he contended that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. on the other hand, learned addl. advocate general, punjab, contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. there is nothing on the record to show that gagandeep kaur, minot child, was tutored by anybody and even she herself denied the suggestion given in the cross- examination. she further contended that the statements of pws have duly proved the motive and the occurrence. statement of eye witness is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. the defence version that karamjit kaur died due to fall is not supported by any medical opinion and cannot be believed. she also contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed. we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned addl. advocate general, punjab and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record very minutely and criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [8].carefully. from the record, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. the mere fact that adoption deed has been executed and the child was given to jarnail singh in adoption while performing ceremonies will itself not prove that there was no motive for the occurrence. the pws have deposed that there used to remain quarrel between karamjit kaur (deceased) and accused sulakhan singh regarding giving the minot child in adoption the adoption deed is of 5th july 2000 and the occurrence took place on 30th july 2000. even pw6 surjit kaur and pw8 dalip singh, complainant, have deposed regarding the motive and the quarrel between them on giving the child in adoption by accused sulakhan singh to his mother's sister's son. therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that motive has been duly proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence. as regarding the defence version and the statements of dws, we find that they have not made any statements to the police. they have not filed any representation or made any complaint to the higher police authority regarding false implication of the accused not they got passed any resolution from the gram panchat. their statements firs.time in the court in defence cannot be believed. the plea of alibi is not proved by the accused by bringing cogent evidence. otherwise also, the defence version that karamjit kaur died due to falling down is totally contradictory to the medical criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [9].evidence. the doctor has specifically stated that there were impressions of thumbs and fingers on the neck of karamjit kaur and single bruise brownish in colour on right side of the neck was found. further 4th and 5th ribs on right side were fractured and as per doctor, there was no external injury. there is even no suggestion to the doctor that the death is due to fall. therefore, the defence version cannot be believed. as regarding the argument that child witness was tutored, we find no merit in this contention also. pw9 gagandeep kaur when appeared in the court has given her age as seven years.she has been cross-examined at length. she has deposed regarding the occurrence. she also deposed that her father while pressing the neck sat on her mother karamjit kaur. this fact is further supported and corroborated by the medical evidence that 4th and 5th ribs of karamjit kaur were found fractured. there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that gagandeep kaur was tutored by the police or by her maternal grand parents. even the suggestions given to the child witness have been denied by her. she has specifically stated in cross-examination that her maternal grand mother and maternal grand father did not tell her as to what statement is to be made by her in the court. therefore, from the evidence on record, we find the child witness trustworthy and reliable witness. her statement has been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. further, karamjit kaur has died in the house of accused and it is for the criminal appeal not d-903-db of 2002 [10].accused to explain the said facts which are in his knowledge how karamjit kaur died. his explanation regarding the death by fall cannot be believed in view of the medical evidence. even as per doctor, it is not the case of suicide. rather the death is homicidal and cause of death is asphyxia by way of strangulation. therefore, we find the pws as reliable and trustworthy. there are no material improvements in their version not there are any material contradictions in their statements which may go to the root of the case. from the evidence, we find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. from the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. the sentence of imprisonment of appellant sulakhan singh was suspended by this court vide order dated 25.04.2006 and he was released on bail during the pendency of appeal. as he is on bail, his bail bond/surety bond stand cancelled. he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law. (satish kumar mittal) (inderjit singh) judge judge 04 12.2012 mamta
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 Date of decision :

04. 12.2012 Sulakhan Singh ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms.Ritu Punj, Addl.

Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

*** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Sulakhan Singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 09.10.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 302 IPC.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the FIR was registered on the statement of Dalip Singh, uncle of deceased Karamjit Kaur, recorded at 10:00 a.m.on 31.07.2000 by Sub Inspector Major Singh, SHO, Police Station Maur.

The complainant Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [2].mainly stated that after the death of his brother Nazar Singh, his daughter Karamjit Kaur, aged about 35 years was married with Sulakhan Singh.

She was married about sixteen years back.

From their wedlock, six children were born.

Last male child, who was aged about two months, was given by accused Sulakhan Singh in adoption to his mother's sister's son namely Jarnail Singh about twenty days ago.

The child was given without the consent of Karamjit Kaur due to which there was a quarrel between Karamjit Kaur and Sulakhan Singh.

On 30.07.2000, in the morning, his wife Basant Kaur, his sister Surjit Kaur and his mother's sister's daughter-in-law Chand Kaur had visited village Kutiwal Kalan and they were also quarreling at that time.

They all went away after advising them.

On 30.07.2000 at about 9:00 p.m., they received a message that Karamjit Kaur has been murdered by her husband Sulakhan Singh at about 6:00 p.m.Due to darkness in the night, they could not turn up.

On 31.07.2000, the complainant alongwith his nephew Naib Singh and other villagers reached at village Kutiwal Kalan where the dead body of Karamjit Kaur was lying in the courtyard of her house.

Motive behind the grudge is that Sulakhan Singh had given his son in adoption to his mother's sister's son without the consent of Karamjit Kaur (deceased) and due to that Karamjit Kaur was angry and was quarrelling with Sulakhan Singh.

When complainant and his nephew were going to report the matter to the police, police party met them and statement of complainant Dalip Singh was recorded.

Ruqa was sent to the Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [3].police station on the basis of which FIR was registered.

Then the Investigating Officer alongwith complainant Dalip Singh, Naib Singh and other police officials reached the spot.

Inquest report Ex.PK was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.

Rough site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.

Accused was arrested on 05.08.2000.

After the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.

On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.Finding a prima facie case against accused, he was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dr.Deepak Rai, Medical Officer, who mainly deposed regarding conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Karamjit Kaur on 31.07.2000.

He found the following injuries on her person:- 1.

Single bruise brownish in colour on right side of neck.

Lateral and above the adam's apple, three bruises on left side of neck, one below the other brownish in colour.

Lateral to adam's apple.

It was dead body of 35 years old female moderately built, wearing kameez, salwar, red and white printed, dupatta, badami in colour around the neck, ring in right finger and coca in left nostril.

Postmortem staining fully Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [4].developed on back.

Rigor mortis fully developed, eyes closed, pale swollen and cyanosed mouth, partially opened, tongue tip bitten with teeth, teeth impression on tongue present.

Tongue swollen, hands clinched bilaterally.

Lips and nails cyanosed, blood coloured froth from nostrils and mouth present (from left edge of the mouth).Pupils dilated, petechial haemorrhage on conjunctive bilaterally.

Fourth and fifth ribs on right side were fractured.

In the opinion of the doctor, death in this case was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation.

Injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary couRs.of nature.

In cross- examination, the doctor also stated that the asphyxia in this case is homicidal because there was impression on the neck of the thumbs and fingers and it cannot be suicidal in this case.

PW2 ASI Kaur Singh and PW3 Constable Gurwinder Singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PE and Ex.PF respectively.

PW4 Pardeep Kumar, Registration Clerk of the office of Sub Registrar, Maur, brought the record regarding registration of the deeds and deposed regarding the adoption deed dated 05.07.2000.

PW5 Parshotam Dass, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of site plan Ex.PH.

PW6 Surjit Kaur, aunt of Karamjit Kaur, mainly deposed that Karamjit Kaur was opposed the adoption.

She alongwith Basant Kaur and Chand Kaur went to the house of accused Sulakhan Singh where they were having a quarrel regarding giving the child in adoption.

They got the Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [5].matter settled and came back.

Lateron, she came to knot that Karamjit Kaur was murdered by the accused.

PW7 Basant Kaur also deposed the same facts as stated by PW6 Surjit Kaur.

PW8 Dalip Singh, complainant, mainly deposed as per prosecution version.

PW9 Gagandeep, daughter of Sulakhan Singh, aged about 7 yeaRs.who is eye-witness to the occurrence, deposed regarding the occurrence and stated that her father Sulakhan gave her younger brother to his cousin.

Her mother used to object in giving the child in adoption but the accused gave her brother in adoption.

About 1½ years ago, she was present in her house.

Her father and brother were also present in the house.

Her father put his thumb on the neck of her mother and sat on her and killed her.

She concealed herself in the bathroom.

She stated above facts to the police.

PW10 Sub Inspector Major Singh is the investigating Officer.

He deposed regarding the investigation of the case.

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and confronted with the evidence of prosecution.

The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent.

He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

He went to cut the fodder in the field.

His daughter Babli came and informed him that her mother was lying fallen in the Courtyard.

He was arrested by the police on the same day i.e.30.07.2000.

The child was given in adoption with the consent of Karamjit Kaur.

Photographs of adoption were taken in Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [6].the Gurudwara.

At that time, respectable people of the village were also present.

Adoption deed was prepared which was thumb marked by Karamjit Kaur.

There was no dispute regarding the adoption at any stage.

He was not present at the time when Karamjit Kaur died.

In defence, the accused examined DW1 Jarnail Singh, who has taken the minot child in adoption.

He mainly deposed regarding the execution of adoption deed and the fact that the child was taken in adoption with the consent of Karamjit Kaur (deceased) and accused Sulakhan Singh and there was no dispute between them before or after the adoption of the child.

DW2 Jalour Singh mainly stated that accused Sulakhan Singh used to come to his field in order to take fodder.

On the day of occurrence, he had come in his field at about 4:30 p.m.Daughter of accused had come to him in his field and told that her mother was lying in the courtyard of the house.

Thereafter, accused went to his house.

DW3 Kaur Singh, who is neighbour, mainly deposed that there was no quarrel between Karamjit Kaur and the accused.

Gagandeep Kaur, daughter of accused, is living in the house of her maternal grand-father.

Child was given in adoption by the accused and his wife to Jarnail Singh of their own accord.

The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no motive for causing the Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [7].occurrence.

A legal adoption deed was executed with the consent of Karamjit Kaur.

He further contended that the accused at the time of occurrence was in the field and Karamjit Kaur fell down and the daughter of accused informed the accused in the field, as deposed by the DWs.

Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statement of child witness cannot be believed as she is residing with her maternal grand parents and is a tutored witness.

He contended that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

On the other hand, learned Addl.

Advocate General, Punjab, contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is nothing on the record to show that Gagandeep Kaur, minot child, was tutored by anybody and even she herself denied the suggestion given in the cross- examination.

She further contended that the statements of PWs have duly proved the motive and the occurrence.

Statement of eye witness is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence.

The defence version that Karamjit Kaur died due to fall is not supported by any medical opinion and cannot be believed.

She also contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl.

Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record very minutely and Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [8].carefully.

From the record, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant.

The mere fact that adoption deed has been executed and the child was given to Jarnail Singh in adoption while performing ceremonies will itself not prove that there was no motive for the occurrence.

The PWs have deposed that there used to remain quarrel between Karamjit Kaur (deceased) and accused Sulakhan Singh regarding giving the minot child in adoption The adoption deed is of 5th July 2000 and the occurrence took place on 30th July 2000.

Even PW6 Surjit Kaur and PW8 Dalip Singh, complainant, have deposed regarding the motive and the quarrel between them on giving the child in adoption by accused Sulakhan Singh to his mother's sister's son.

Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that motive has been duly proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence.

As regarding the defence version and the statements of DWs, we find that they have not made any statements to the police.

They have not filed any representation or made any complaint to the higher police authority regarding false implication of the accused not they got passed any resolution from the Gram Panchat.

Their statements fiRs.time in the Court in defence cannot be believed.

The plea of alibi is not proved by the accused by bringing cogent evidence.

Otherwise also, the defence version that Karamjit Kaur died due to falling down is totally contradictory to the medical Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [9].evidence.

The doctor has specifically stated that there were impressions of thumbs and fingers on the neck of Karamjit Kaur and single bruise brownish in colour on right side of the neck was found.

Further 4th and 5th ribs on right side were fractured and as per doctor, there was no external injury.

There is even no suggestion to the doctor that the death is due to fall.

Therefore, the defence version cannot be believed.

As regarding the argument that child witness was tutored, we find no merit in this contention also.

PW9 Gagandeep Kaur when appeared in the Court has given her age as seven yeaRs.She has been cross-examined at length.

She has deposed regarding the occurrence.

She also deposed that her father while pressing the neck sat on her mother Karamjit Kaur.

This fact is further supported and corroborated by the medical evidence that 4th and 5th ribs of Karamjit Kaur were found fractured.

There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that Gagandeep Kaur was tutored by the police or by her maternal grand parents.

Even the suggestions given to the child witness have been denied by her.

She has specifically stated in cross-examination that her maternal grand mother and maternal grand father did not tell her as to what statement is to be made by her in the Court.

Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find the child witness trustworthy and reliable witness.

Her statement has been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence.

Further, Karamjit Kaur has died in the house of accused and it is for the Criminal Appeal not D-903-DB of 2002 [10].accused to explain the said facts which are in his knowledge how Karamjit Kaur died.

His explanation regarding the death by fall cannot be believed in view of the medical evidence.

Even as per doctor, it is not the case of suicide.

Rather the death is homicidal and cause of death is asphyxia by way of strangulation.

Therefore, we find the PWs as reliable and trustworthy.

There are no material improvements in their version not there are any material contradictions in their statements which may go to the root of the case.

From the evidence, we find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

From the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

The sentence of imprisonment of appellant Sulakhan Singh was suspended by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2006 and he was released on bail during the pendency of appeal.

As he is on bail, his bail bond/surety bond stand cancelled.

He is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 04 12.2012 mamta