Bishan Singh vs The State of Punjab

Gurnam Singh, J.—Bishan Singh son of Achhar Singh, resident of village Kaler Kalan, tehsil and district Gurdaspur, was married 10 Mst. Ratni daughter of Gurdit Singh of village Khunda, about 21 years back. At the time of marriage, he was serving in the Army. He served the Army for 15/16 years and retired from service about 6/7 years back. After his retirement, he started living in village Kaler Kalan to Which village he belonged, along with his wife Mst Ratni. After staying in the village for about six months, he went to Ranchi to earn his (sic) and in his absence Mst. Ratni used to reside sometimes in village Kaler Kalan and sometimes in village Khunda. During this period, Shangara Singh of village Jalalabad started visaing Mst. Ratni in village Kaler Kalan and developed illicit relations with her. Bishan Singh remained at Ranchi for 4/5 years and than returned to his village. Mst. Ratni lived with him there for about a month and thereafter went away with Shangara Singh to village Jalalabad along with her children. After living for about a month with Shangara Singh in village Jalalabad, Mst. Ratni came to her parent''s house in village Khunda and stayed there for about two or two months and a half.

On 24th June, 1969, Bishan Singh, the appellant, went to the house of Gurdit Singh at village Khunda on a cycle. At that time, Mst. Ratni, her mother Harnam Kaur and Mst. Viro, daughter of Mst. Ratni were present in the house. Gurdit Singh had gone to help his brother Narain Singh in putting up a mussal of toori, Bishan Singh asked Mst. Ratni to accompany him, at that very time, but she declined to go with him at night time. This lad to a verbal altercation between Mst. Ratni, her mother and her daughter on one side and Bishan Singh, on the other. In the meantime, Gurdit Singh, father of Mst. Ratni along with his brother Narain Singh reached there. Bishan Singh tried to drag Mst. Ratni out of the house with a view to take her away along with him, but Gurdit Singh intervened and said that he would not allow him to take her at night time. Thereupon Bishan Singh took out a small kirpan and caused 4/5 blows with the same to Gurdit Singh at his chest, neck, left, flank and shoulders. On receipt of kirpan blows, Gurdit Singh fell down and died instantaneously, Bishan Singh, after causing injuries to Gurdit Singh flied away along with his kirpan, leaving his cycle there. Nobody went to the police station on account of the fear of Bishan Singh. On the following morning, Mst. Ratni accompanied by Swaran Singh, Sarpanch, went to police station Dhariwal, and lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit P.C. at 5 A.M. The special report of the case reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at Gurdaspur at 12.55 P.M., on the same day. After necessary investigation of the case, Bishan Singh was chalaned u/s 302, Indian Penal Code.

Bishan Singh was tried u/s 3 2, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Gurdit Singh by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, who by his judgment dated 30th January, 1970 convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bishan Singh has come up in appeal to this Court.

Shri Iqbal Singh, Sub-Inspector, after recording the first information report come to the spot along with Mst. Ratni and Swaran Singh, Sarpanch, and found the dead-body of Gurdit Singh lying in the court-yard of his house, being guarded by Udho, chowkidar. The inquest report, Exhibit P.L., was prepared by the Sub-Inspector and the dead-body was sent to Gurdaspur mortuary for post-mortem Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh lifted bloodstained earth from the spot and made it into a sealed parcel. The cycle of Bishan Singh, appellant, was found lying in the court-yard and it was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit P.K. The statements of Mst. Harnam Kaur, Narain Singh and Mst. Viro, P.Ws., were recorded by Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh. Bishan Singh, appellant, was produced before Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh by Surat Singh Sarpanch and Jagat Singh, Member Panchayat, on 4th July, 1969, and was got medically examined.

The post-mortem on the dead body of Gurdit Singh was conducted by Dr. Jasdev Kaur Sidhu on 25th June, 1969 at 5.30 P.M., who noted 8 injuries on the dead-body. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock, resulting from injuries to lungs, vessels and heart. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem about 20 hours, as opined by the doctor. The stomach of the deceased contained undigested food, meat and capatis.

Mst. Ratni, Mst. Harnam Kaur and Narain Singh, P.Ws., narrated the eye-version account of the occurrence. Mst. Viro was only tendered for cross-examination. Swaran Singh, (P.W. 8), stated that he accompanied Mst. Ratni to police station Dhariwal for lodging the report. He also proved the recovery memo Exhibit P.J., vide which blood-stained earth was taken into possession from the spot. The cycle was also taken into possession in his presence vide memo. Exhibit P.K., and the same has been proved by him. Swaran Singh further stated that at about 4 O''clock, he had heard some noise from the side of the house of Gurdit Singh, that he went there and found Gurdit Singh lying murdered and that Mst. Ratni, Mst. Viro and Mst. Harnam Kaur were present there. He further stated that Mst. Ratni told him that her father had been killed but she did net tell the name of the assailant nor he enquired about that from her.

Udho, chowkidar, also stated that he went to the house of Gurdit Singh at about mid-night and saw Gurdit Singh lying murdered in a vacant land near the outer door of the house and Mst. Ratni, Mst. Harnam Kaur and some other ladies present there. He further deposed that none of the ladles told him as to who had killed Gurdit Singh. He further stated that Mst. Ratni along with Swaran Singh, Sarpanch, went to the police station at about 5 A.M. and that he guarded the dead-body till the arrival of the police. He also proved the recovery memos. Exhibits P.J. and P.K. vide which the blood-stained earth and the cycle were taken into possession by the police, respectively. The investigation of the case was conducted by Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh.

The appellant, while examined u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that after his retirement from the army, he went to Ranchi and that in his absence, his wife Mst. Ratni, developed illicit intimacy with Shangara Singh of Jalalabad. He also admitted that on his return from Ranchi to his village, his wife lived with him for about a month but thereafter she, along with her children, went to Jalalabad and started living with Shangara Singh. He denied the rest of the allegations made against him by the prosecution witnesses. He further stated that about 2� months before the present occurrence, he accompanied by his father-in-law Gurdit Singh, Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of his village and two other persons had gone to village Jalalabad and brought his wife Mst. Ratni from the house of Shangpra Singh in village Kaler Kalan. He further stated that about 15 days before the occurrence, his father-in-law Gurdit Singh came to his house and took away Mst. Ratni to village Khunda on the plea that she was to participate in the marriage of Suraina''s son and that he did not know as to how Gurdit Singh was murdered, but he was arrested. No defence evidence was produced by him.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first information report in this case had been lodged late, that the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses were discrepant on material facts and that in fact somebody else had killed Gurdit Singh and Mst. Ratni falsely implicated the appellant as she wanted to live with Shangara Singh of Jalalabad.

The first information report in this case was lodged at 5 A.M. on 25th June, 1969. The explanation given by Mst. Ratni in this respect is that her brother was not in the village and being afraid of the appellant, she did not go to the police station at night time. This explanation of Mst. Ratni appears to be plausible. The special report in this case reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 12.55 P.M. at Gurdaspur. Gurdaspur is connected with a metalled road with Dhariwal. No doubt the special report could reach the Ilaqa Magistrate earlier to that but the first information report, being not a substantive piece of evidence, the delay in its lodging, simply gives rise to a suspicion which puts the Court on guard to scrutinize the evidence with care and caution. In the instant case the ocular version consists of the statements of Mst. Ratni, Mst. Harnam Kaur and Narain Singh. The presence of Mst. Ratni and Mst. Harnam Kaur at their house at the alleged time of occurrence is very natural. According to Narain Singh, he had accompanied Gurdit Singh, deceased, after finishing the preparation of the mussal. He also stated about the occurrence. Mst. Viro was also said to be present in the house at the time of the occurrence but she was simply tendered for cross-examination. The practice of tendering a witness has not been appreciated by this Court as tendered evidence, is no evidence. Mst. Ratni, P.W., is the wife of the appellant and Harnam Kaur is his mother-in-law. Ordinarily a wife and mother-in-law would not depose against her husband and son-in-law, respectively. No doubt Mst. Ratni and Mst. Harnam Kaur are the close relations of the deceased also but it is very difficult to believe that they would spare the real culprit and substitute their own near relation for the same. It is also a fact that Mst. Ratni had been living with Shangara Singh of Jalalabad, in the absence of the appellant, but that fact also cannot be held sufficient to hold that she would falsely implicate her own husband. During the cross-examination of the alleged eye-witnesses, a suggestion was put to each of them that someone else had murdered Gurdit Singh, outside his house, but a mere suggestion does not take the place of evidence. It had been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact Shangara Singh had murdered Gurdit Singh and that Mst. Ratni falsely named the appellant in order to get rid of him. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted because if Shangara Singh was to murder a person, his target would have been the appellant and not his father in law, Gurdit Singh It is a case of single accused and, therefore, it is improbable that the appellant would have been substituted for the real culprit. Even if the version given by Narain Singh, P.W., is not believed, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Mst. Ratni and her mother Mst. Harnam Kaur, whose presence at their house is quite natural and most probable.

The prosecution version is further corroborated by the medical evidence. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 were caused by sharp pointed weapon and Nos. 3, 5 and 6 with sharp edged weapon. Further, in the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Mst. Ratni, at the trial, stated that the appellant remained quarrelling with her father for about two hours before he (appellant) attacked him with a kirpan, while in the committing Court she had stated that the quarrel lasted for about 15/20 minutes. Mst. Ratni at the trial, further stated that the statement made by her in the committing Court was wrong while her statement at the trial was correct the other discrepancy pointed out was that in the committing Court, Mst. Ratni stated that the appellant had come at her father''s house at about 9 or 10 P.M. while at the trial she stated that he came at about 6 P.M. Mst Ratni denied having stated in the committing Court that the appellant had come at 9 or 10 P.M. It was further pointed out that Mst. Ratni, in her statement in the committing Court had slated that sue along with her father and mother were taking meals in the chauka when the appellant came while at the trial she stated that her father had not taken his meals with them. Mst. Ratni also denied having stated so in the committing Court. Rather the version given by her at the trial was that her father had taken his meals at the house of her uncle Narain Singh. The other discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant was that according to Mst. Ratni and Mst. Harnam Kaur, the cycle of the appellant was lying locked till the police reached there but Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh stated that the cycle, P. 4, was lying unlocked when he took the same into possession. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant do not materially affect the version given by Mst. Ratni and Mst. Harnam Kaur Such like discrepancies rather go to show that the witnesses are telling the truth. Mst. Harnam Kaur and Mst. Ratni are both illiterate ladies and as such had no idea of time and simply on that account their statements cannot be brushed aside. Similarly the locking or unlocking of the cycle does not in any way affect the prosecution case.

From the evidence on the tile, therefore, it is established beyond doubt that Gurdit Singh had been done to death by the appellant.

The next point to be seen is as to what was the offence committed by Bishan Singh, appellant. Admittedly, Mst. Ratni, P.W., had illicit relations with Shangara Singh of village Jalalabad She (Mst. Ratni) also stated that she did not want to live with the appellant, rather wanted to live with Shangara Singh. She further deposed that about two and a half months prior to the occurrence, her brother Channan Singh, father Gurdit Singh, deceased uncle Narain Singh, Sawarn Singh Sarpanch and Bishan Singh, the appellant, had brought her to village Khunda from the house of Shangara Singh, at Jalalabad. Since then Mst. Ratni had been living with her parents at village Khunda. The appellant had gone to bring her back to his house from there and wanted Mst. Ratni to accompany him (appellant) at night time, to which she did not agree. Gurdit Singh, deceased, also came and intervened when the appellant was in the act of taking Mst. Ratni away forcibly to his (appellant''s) house, and as admitted by Mst. Ratni, P.W., a quarrel had ensued in between them.

Mst. Ratni admitted that the appellant was saying that he would not let her live with Shangara Singh and that Gurdit Singh, her father, however, told the appellant that she (Mst. Ratni) would live with Shangara Singh and that he (the appellant) could do anything he liked. The appellant had caused injuries to Gurdit Singh, by taking out his small kirpan after he (Gurdit Singh) told him that he would not let him (the appellant) take Mst Ratni with him at night time The reply given by Gurdit Singh, that Mst. Ratni would live with Shangara Singh and that the appellant could do whatever he liked, is certainly an insolent reply and a challenge to him. The appellant, on hearing the abovesaid words from his father in-law, must have been provoked so as to lose his self control The appellant on learning that his father-in-law was also a party in sending Mst. Ratni to Shangara Singh, was expected to be deprived of the power of self-control and that is why he suddenly took out a small kirpan and caused him injuries. A reasonable man will not expect his father in law saying that his daughter shall not live with his son-in-law but would live with her paramour. The appellant is an ex-army man His feelings had already been hurt when his wife openly started living with Shangara Singh of village Jalalabad. When his conscience was challenged by his father-in-law that his wife would live with Shangara Singh and that he could do whatever he liked, that must have deprived him of his self-control and, therefore, the provocation given to him was grave and sudden and as such the crime of murder will be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder with the application of Exception I, appended to section 300, Indian Penal Cede. This case, therefore, falls within the purview of section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, are, therefore, set aside and instead he is convicted u/s 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Cods, and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. With this modification the appeal stands dismissed.

M.L. Verma, J.

I agree.