Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

Judgment

1. Accused Raj Kumar was tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in case FIR No. 455 dated 16.11.1999, registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, under Section 302 IPC, for having committed the murder of his wife Yashodha Devi. Vide judgment and order dated 1.8.2002, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that accused Raj Kumar along with his wife Yashoda Devi (since deceased) and a child was residing in one room of a quarter in Railway Colony No.6, Diesel Shed, Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -2- Ludhiana. He was working as an Electrician in the Railway Department. On

16.11.1999 at 5.55 AM, FIR (Ex.PW6/E) was registered against him under Section 302 IPC, on the basis of statement of Mohan Rana (PW.6) made by him to SI Jagtar Singh (PW.9), wherein he had stated that he was working as Driver in Railway Diesel Shed, Ludhiana, and was residing in a three room quarter in Railway Colony No.6, Ludhiana, which was allotted to him. Out of three rooms, he had given one room each to Rajinder Kumar (PW.7) and accused Raj Kumar, who were residing in those rooms, with their respective families, for the last about 1 ½/2 years. Accused and his wife Yashodha Devi along with their 4 years old son were residing in a side room. Their remained a common quarrel between the couple. Yashodha Devi had told him (Mohan Rana) that about 2-3 years ago, her husband had injured her by giving blows and there is stitching injury in her head. On the night of 16.11.1999, he; Rajinder Kumar and his wife Santosh; accused Raj Kumar and his wife Yashodha Devi were sleeping, as usual, in their respective rooms. At about 1.00 AM, he, Rajinder Kumar and Santosh on hearing shrieks from the room of Raj Kumar, came out from their rooms. They saw that accused Raj Kumar hurriedly came out of his room, opened the door of the main gate of the house and ran away. Then they went to the room of accused Raj Kumar and saw that his wife Yashodha Devi was lying on bed in a pool of blood. Within their sight, due to the injuries suffered by her, she breathed her last. Thereupon, while leaving Santosh near the dead body, he and Rajinder Kumar started to search accused Raj Kumar, but Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -3- when he could not be traced, they went to the police station to lodge the report. As per the prosecution, the police met these persons near Bus Stand Ludhiana and SI Jagtar Singh recorded the aforesaid statement of Mohan Rana at about 5 AM. After recording the statement, ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR, on the basis of which the FIR (Ex.PW.6/E) was registered. The special report was sent to the Magistrate on 16.11.1999 at 8.00 AM.

3. SI Jagtar Singh along with the police party and the complainant Mohan Rana and Rajinder Kumar went to the spot. After reaching at the spot, inquest report (Ex.PW6/B) was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the dead body of the deceased, which was identified by Mohan Rana and Santosh wife of Rajinder Kumar, was sent for post mortem examination. The clothes removed from the dead body, at the time of the post mortem examination, were produced before SI Jagtar Singh, which were taken into possession by him vide recovery memo (Ex.PW9/B).

4. On 16.11.1999 at about 1 PM, Dr. Gurcharan Singh (PW.1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries on her body :-

1. Lacerated wound 3 ½” x 3” on and around the mouth underlying mandibular bones were fractured. Underlying teeth were fractured.

2. Multiple lacerated wounds varying sizes on front of right ear.

3. Lacerated wound ¾” x ½” on right occipital area. Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -4-

4. Lacerated wound 1 ½” x 2” on right occipital area 1” behind injury No.3.

5. Abraded contusion with swelling in the area of 6” x 4” in front of left arm.

7. Contused swelling on the dorsum of left hand. Abraded contusion 12” x 5” on front of upper part of right chest extending up to upper third of right arm on its frontal aspect.

8. Contused swelling of dorsum of right hand. According to him, on exploration of injuries No.3 and 4, underlying bones were found fractured. Stomach was containing semi-digested food. As per his opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries found on the body were ante- mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between the injuries and the death was immediately and between the death and the post mortem examination was about 12 hours. The Post Mortem Report of the deceased has been proved on record as Ex.PA.

5. On the same day i.e. on 16.11.1999, the accused was arrested. On his interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A, in pursuance of which he got recovered his blood stained clothes and one loon ghotna (a wooden rod), which were kept concealed by him near the bushes along the wall of Gurdwara Sahib, near the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The same were taken into possession by SI Jagtar Singh vide recovery memo Ex.PW.8/B, in the presence of HC Paramjit Singh (PW.8). Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -5-

6. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed against the accused and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of whom PW.2 C-II Hardeep Singh, PW.3 Constable Piara Singh, PW.4 HC Kuldip Singh and PW.5 Constable Charanjit Singh are the formal witnesses.

8. PW.1 Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, proved the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PA) of the deceased. PW.6 Mohan Rana, the complainant, and PW.7 Rajinder Kumar, the eye witness, have fully supported the prosecution case. PW.8 HC Paramjit Singh, is the witness to the disclosure statement (Ex.PW.8/A) and the recovery memo (Ex.PW.8/B). PW.9 SI Jagtar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. However, the prosecution did not examine Smt. Santosh wife of Rajinder Kumar, who had also seen the alleged occurrence.

9. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. He pleaded innocence and stated that he was working in Railway Department as an Electrician. On the night of the occurrence, he was called by his seniors in connection with electrical repairs in Engine Shed. In the early hours, when he learnt about the murder of his wife, he rushed to his house, where many people had gathered and lateron, the police arrived there. He pleaded that after consultation with complainant Mohan Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -6- Rana and Rajinder Kumar, he was falsely implicated in the case of the murder of his wife. The Investigating Officer had taken his signatures on blank papers and prepared documents against him. In support of his plea, the accused neither produced any document nor examined any witness.

10. The trial court, while relying upon the statements of the complainant, eye witness Rajinder Kumar, the medical evidence and the other corroborative evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused, as indicated above. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been filed by the accused.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, which is not only suspicious and doubtful, but is also incredible. He argued that there are many material contradictions in the prosecution version as well as the statements of two material witnesses, namely PW.6 Mohan Rana and PW.7 Rajinder Kumar. Learned counsel argued that in the prosecution version, there is no mention of the child as to whether at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was in the room or not. He further argued that both the witnesses have not stated that after committing the alleged crime, the accused ran away from the spot along with loon ghotna, which was subsequently got recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Learned counsel further argued that in this case, Smt. Santosh wife of Rajinder Kumar, another material witness, who allegedly also came present, has not been examined by the prosecution. He further argued that it has Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -7- come in evidence that after the occurrence, many persons from the locality had assembled, but none of them has been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Learned counsel submitted that in the inquest report (Ex.PW6/B), it was not mentioned as to what articles were worn by the deceased, when her body was recovered. According to the learned counsel, these discrepancies create doubt in the prosecution version. Learned counsel also contended that recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused and loon ghotna has been planted upon the accused, as it has not been explained by the prosecution that how and when, the accused had changed his clothes. He further argued that even the medical evidence produced by the prosecution is not consistent with the ocular evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances, which can lead to conviction of the accused. Learned counsel submitted that conviction of the appellant is wholly unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the judgment of the learned trial court and argued that there is sufficient and reliable evidence on record, on the basis of which conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the trial court is fully justified.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the judgment and order of the learned trial court, while convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -8- of his wife. The prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, by leading sufficient cogent and reliable evidence. The appellant along with his wife and child was living in one room of the quarter allotted to Mohan Rana. On the day of occurrence, in the night, at about 1.00 AM, PW.6 Mohan Rana and PW.7 Rajinder Kumar, who were residing in the other rooms in the same quarter heard the shrieks of the wife of the appellant and they came out of their rooms. At that time, they saw that appellant hurriedly came out of his room, opened the door of the main gate of the house and ran away. When both these PWs went inside the room of the appellant, they found that his wife Yashodha was lying on bed in a pool of blood. Within their sight, she died. Both these prosecution witnesses, who are independent and most natural witnesses, have supported the prosecution case. After minutely going through their statements, we find that statements of these two witnesses are consistent, credible and trust- worthy. There was no enmity or motive on their part to falsely implicate the appellant. No suggestion regarding any motive on their part to falsely implicate the appellant has been put to these prosecution witnesses. It has come in evidence that both these witnesses were working with the appellant in the Railways Department. There is no reason for them to make false deposition against their co-worker. They are most natural witnesses, as both of them as well as the appellant were living in one and the same quarter, which was allotted to PW.6 Mohan Rana. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any major or material contradiction in their statements, Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -9- which may create any doubt regarding their presence at the time of the alleged occurrence.

14. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Santosh, who had also seen the appellant running from the house, has not been examined, in our opinion, does not cause any dent in the prosecution case. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the offence. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration by other witnesses may be necessary, when the sole witness is only partially reliable. If the evidence of a witness is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth, then on the basis of his evidence alone, conviction can be maintained. It is always not necessary that the prosecution should examine all the cited witnesses. It is for the prosecution to examine and not to examine a particular witness, but if the witnesses examined by the prosecution are credible and reliable to convict a person for an offence, then non-examination of one more witness will not create any doubt in the prosecution case.

15. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding delay in lodging the FIR is also without any substance. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place at about 1.00 AM (night), when the appellant left his room hurriedly and ran away from his house, upon which both the eye witnesses went inside the room of the appellant and Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -10- found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and within their sight, she died. They immediately came out of the room and started searching the appellant. It has come in the statements of these two eye witnesses that they had searched the appellant for more than an hour and thereafter, when they could not find him, they went to the police to lodge the report. It has also come in the evidence that the police met them near Bus Stand, Ludhiana at about 3.00 AM and then statement of Mohan Rana was recorded. Thereafter, the ruqa was sent to the police station and the police party along with the complainant and Rajinder Kumar went to the spot. Thereafter, the FIR was registered at 5.55 AM and the special report was received by the Magistrate at 8.00 AM. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that by taking the benefit of time in lodging the FIR, the appellant was falsely implicated in this case.

16. We also do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case, the recovery of blood stained clothes and one loon ghotna has been planted upon the appellant, as at the time of the disclosure statement (Ex.PW8/A) as well as the aforesaid recovery, the prosecution did not associate any independent witness. We have gone through the disclosure statement (Ex.PW8/A), the recovery memo (Ex.PW8/B) and the statements of PW.8 HC Paramjit Singh and PW.9 SI Jagtar Singh. PW.9 SI Jagtar Singh has categorically stated that at the time of the aforesaid recovery, one or two persons from the public were asked to join the police, but none of them agreed to become witness to the Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -11- recovery. In these circumstances, the independent witness could not be associated. However, in our opinion, the prosecution has fully proved the recovery by examining PW.8 HC Paramjit Singh, witness to the recovery, and PW.9 SI Jagtar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case.

17. Though PW.6 Mohan Rana and PW.7 Rajinder Kumar have not directly seen the appellant causing injuries to the deceased, but they had seen the appellant while hurriedly coming out of his room. In the mid-night, both these witnesses had woken up after hearing the shrieks of the deceased and when they came out of their rooms, they saw the appellant coming out of his room and he hurriedly went out of the quarter. In our opinion, this sole circumstance is enough to reach to the conclusion that it was the appellant, who had caused injuries to his wife, who had died immediately. Both these witnesses had stated that the deceased died within their sight. PW.1 Dr. Gurcharan Singh has clearly stated that the deceased in this case has died due to the injuries given to her and those injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In our opinion, conduct of the appellant in leaving his room hurriedly and in a frightened condition, and then running away from the house, certainly points towards his guilt. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has taken the plea that at the relevant time, he had been called by his seniors for electrical repairs in the engine shed, but in support of this plea, he did not lead any evidence, whatsoever. Even no suggestion to this effect was put to any of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it appears that the plea taken by the Crl. A. No. 384-DB of 2003 -12- appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is after-thought and the same has rightly not been accepted by the learned trial court. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, and the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 01, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE