Chanan Singh vs The State of Punjab

Muni Lal Verma, J.—The appellant was convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, for causing the murder of his brother-Mukhtiar Singh and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 26th April, 1969, at about noon, Mukhtiar Singh was digging pit in his land, located at a short distance from the habitation of village-Khai which is about three kilometres from Police Station, Lehra. He was doing so with a view to obtain sub-soil water, which was available at the depth of 10 feet. He needed the said water for cooling the engine which was installed on a bullock cart and was to be worked for cutting wheat crop and separating the grain from the chaff. His son-Bhim Singh had accompanied him and had been helping him in digging the said pit. He had gone to a hand-pump, fixed in a field at a distance of 200 karams, for bringing drinking water and he (Bhim Singh) was returning with water in a pitcher from there at the time of incident. The appellant came to the aforesaid pit. He picked up the kassi, with which Mukhtiar Singh had dug the pit, and gave blows with it to him. He (Mukhtiar Singh) was then digging the pit with a khurpa, and he dropped there under the blows inflicted to him by the appellant with kassi. Throwing the pitcher containing water on the ground, Bhim Singh had rushed to the aforesaid pit to save his father. The appellant, however, deterred him by the show of kassi, and he (the appellant) decamped towards village-Lehlan carrying the kassi with him. Bhim Singh rushed to his house and informed his mother-Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur and grandfather Deva Singh that the appellant had run away after causing injuries to Mukhtiar Singh, with kassi. Thereupon, Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur, accompanied by other villagers including Deva Singh and Bhim Singh went to the aforesaid pit. Mukhtiar Singh was lying unconscious there. He was brought to the house and was carried on a cot from there to Civil Hospital, Lehra. Dr. Gian Chand Mittal sent information about his arrival in injured condition to the police station. Mukhtiar Singh however, succumbed to his injuries at 1.40 P.M, i.e., within about 15 minutes after his reaching the hospital. Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur and others, who had brought Mukhtiar Singh to the civil hospital, carried his dead body from there to the village. Dr Gian Chand Mittal had then sent information about the death of Mukhtiar Singh in the hospital and about the removal of his dead body from there to the police station. On receipt of the said information. Sub Inspector Randhir Singh rushed to village-khai. The dead dody of Mukhtiar Singh had been removed to the cremation ground and it was at about 2.30 P.M. when Sub Inspector Randhir Singh reached there and recorded the statement of Bhim Singh which was sent to Police Station, Lehra, where case u/s 304, Indian Penal Code, was registered. Since the dead body had not yet been placed upon the pyre. Sub Inspector Randhir Singh held inquest on it and sent it to Civil Hospital, Sunam, for post-mortem examination and Dr. Naresh Chand conducted autopsy on it. Sub Inspector Randhir Singh went to the scene of offence and he removed blood soaked earth from there. He recorded statements of the witnesses. The appellant was not available at his house or in the village. He was arrested by Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh, who was then posted in Police Station, Rattia, at 6.30 P.M on 10th April, 1969, in front of a liquor vend at Rattia. Ten grams of opium were recovered from him at that time and, on receipt of information about the incident from the appellant, Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh sent necessary information to Police Station, Lehra, from where Assistant Sub Inspector Balwant Singh went to Police Station, Rattia, and obtained the custody of the appellant and took him to Police Station, Lehra, on 7th May, 1969. Hence, the Police Lehra, after necessary investigation, prosecuted the appellant u/s 304, Indian Penal Code, and the learned Magistrate committed him to the Court of Session for standing trial for the offence of murder u/s 302, Indian Penal Code.

The appellant denied knowledge about the incident and raised the plea of insanity. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, and finding that the case of the appellant was not covered by section 84, Indian Penal Code, recorded the conviction and sentence, as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has appealed. The evidence was read out to us and we heard the arguments and examined the record.

The facts, that blows had been delivered to Mukhtiar Singh with kassi in the field, when he was digging pit with khurpa, and, as a result of the injuries caused to him, he had died; that he was younger brother of the appellant whose wife had died some time in the past, and that Bhim Singh (P. W.) is the son of Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur (P.W.) is the widow, of the deceased, are amply born out by the evidence present on record and are not disputed.

Bhim Singh (P. W. 1) who had witnessed the incident, narrated the story which bus been summarised above. He has deposed that the appellant came to the field when Mukhtiar Singh was digging the pit with khurpa, and he (the appellant) picked up the kassi, with which Mukhtiar Singh had earlier dug the pit, and gave blows with it (kassi) to him (Mukhtiar Singh) and ran away carrying the kassi with him. Bhim Singh is the real nephew of the appellant and he had no cause or motive to make false statement against him. Since Mukhtiar Singh had gone to the field to dig the pit with a view to obtain sub-soil water, it sounds natural that his Son, viz., Bhim Singh, had accompanied him. His (Bhim Singh''s) mother Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur confirmed his going with Mukhtiar Singh when she stated that he (Bhim Singh) had accompanied him (Mukhtiar Singh) when the latter proceeded to the filed at 10 A.M. The statement of Bhim Singh does not suffer from any infirmity which could induce us to disbelieve him He had advanced to the scene of offence to save his father. The appellant had, however, deterred him by raising kassi towards him. After the departure of the appellant, he (Bhim Singh) had rushed to the village and informed his grand-father and mother about the incident. Thereafter, he along with others had carried Mukhtiar Singh on a cot to Civil Hospital, Lehra. This is all what he could do at the time and scene of incident, and thereafter. So, his conduct is not open to any criticism. He receives corroboration from his mother Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur who has sworn that at about (sic) he (Bhim Singh) had come to the house and told her that the appellant had wounded Mukhtiar Singh by giving blows with kasai to him. He (Bhim Singh) made report, which was recorded in Exhibit P.A., to Sub Inspector Randhir Singh. The said report was concluded at 2.30 P.M. Mukhtiar Singh had been carried to Civil Hospital, Lehra, at 1.25 P.M. and he succumbed to his injuries there at 1.40 P.M. Dr. Gian Chand Mittal had than sent information to the police station from where Sub Inspector Randhir Singh rushed to the cremation ground of village Khai In these circumstances, it cannot be gainsaid that report Exhibit P.A. contains the earliest version, which is exactly the same which was deposed to by Bhim Singh. So, it corroborates his statement. It, thus, follows that Bhim Singh satisfies the necessary test of judicial scrutiny and he appeals to us to be wholly reliable witness and the version, deposed to him, sounds true.

Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur (P. W. 2) maintained that she had carried meals for her husband and son Bhim Singh to the field, where they were working, and it was after her return from there that the appellant proceeded to the field where Mukhtiar Singh had been working. She continued to state, and similar is the statement of Bhim Singh, that the appellant did not return to the house or to village Khai after committing the offence. Sub-Inspector Gurdial Singh (P. W. 12) testified that it was at 6.30 P.M. on 30th April, 1969, that he found the appellant present in front of the liquor vend at Rattia; and, as he (the appellant) avoided the police party, he arrested him. He added that 10 grams of opium was found in his (the appellant''s) possession and it was on his (the appellant''s) interrogation that he (Sub-Inspector Gurdial Singh) came to know about the incident. The statement of Sub-Inspector Gurdial Singh was allowed to go unchallenged. So, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of his statement. Assistant Sub-Inspector Balwant Singh (P. W. 13) had obtained the appellant from Police Station, Rattia, and brought him to Police Station, Lehra on 7th May, 1969. It is, thus, evident that the appellant had run away after committing the crime and he remained in abscondance for no less than four days. The said abscondance of the appellant may not be proof of his guilt, but it reads consistent with the ether evidence and, as such, lends assurance to the prosecution case.

Dr. Naresh Chand (P. W. 4) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mukhtiar Singh at 9.30 A.M. on 27th April, 1969, and found two incised wounds on the head and an incised wound on the forehead and two abrasions on the said dead body. He also found semi-digested food in the stomach. He testified that Mukhtiar Singh had died within a few hours after receipt of the injuries and that he had died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from two incised wounds inflicted on his (Mukhtiar Singh''s) head. The ocular evidence, as discussed above, tells that the appellant had given blows with kassi to Mukhtiar Singh and that he had died within a few hours after sustaining the injuries. Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur had carried the meals to the field at about 11 A.M. and, most probably, the said meals had been taken by Mukhtiar Singh at that time He had died at 1.40 P.M. As such, semi-digested food was found in his stomach. Therefore, the medical evidence reads consistent with the other evidence, including the ocular, and, as such, it affords necessary support to the prosecution case.

It, thus, follows that the prosecution evidence, when read as a whole, points out unmistakably that the appellant had caused injuries, no less than three in Dumber, with kassi to Mukhtiar Singh as a result of which he had died. Kassi is a lethal weapon and head is a vital part of human body. Therefore, the act of the appellant in giving blows with kassi, three in number, on the head and forehead of Mukhtiar Singh demonstrates that be had inflicted the injuries to him with intention to cause his death. According to the medical evidence, two of the incised wounds, caused on the head, had proved fatal and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Mukhtiar Singh Therefore, the charge of murder is conclusively proved against the appellant.

Insanity (unsoundness of mind) is not per se a defence u/s 84, Indian Penal Code. In order to seek immunity from criminal liability under the exception provided by that section, it has to be shown that, besides that the accused was insane at the time of commission of the offence, he was, on account of such insanity, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was not then aware that the act committed by him was wrong or was contrary to law. Where the evidence does not go to the length of showing that the accused could not be conscious of the nature of the act be was doing at the time of occurrence, but only showed that he was odd or moody, and had been somewhat abnormal a day or two before the day of occurrence, or even on that day, the exemption from criminal liability cannot be allowed on the ground of insanity, as such a case does not come within the purview of section 84, Indian Penal Code Crucial point of time at which the insanity of the accused should have existed, is the time when the offence was committed by him. His behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the offence, are relevant in finding his mental condition at that time. Every man is proved to be sane unless the contrary is proved. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that Mukhtiar Singh was the real brother of the appellant, and he (the appellant) did not carry any weapon with him when he went to the field, and the prosecution was not able to show that he had any motive to commit the crime and that Bhim Singh and Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur admitted that the appellant had been suffering from some mental derangement, so he was insane. We have not been able to accept the said argument. The circumstance, that the deceased was the brother of the appellant cannot be a ground, much less just, for contending that the latter had committed his murder under the influence of insanity, because cases are not wanting wherein persons had killed their own brothers. Again, it would be no ground to say that he was insane since he did not carry any weapon with him, because he could think or anticipate that any weapon, including a kassi with which the deceased had gone for digging the pit, would be available in the field. Mere absence of motive is not enough to say that the appellant had acted under insanity in causing the death of Mukhtiar Singh because there may be motiveless crime and some time motive for crime may not be fathomed. True, Bhim Singh admitted that Chanan Singh had a fit of insanity for about a week before the incident and the said fit of insanity continued till commission of the crime. Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur did state that the appellant was being addressed as pagal but she added that to her he did not look like a person of unsound mind, and explained that she stated in her statement, recorded in inquest report (Exhibit P. D./1) that the appellant was suffering from some defect in his brain, on the asking of the police. Though Natha Singh (P. W 3) stated that the appellant had suffered from mental derangement, yet he added that he had heard so from the villagers and had no occasion himself to see the mental condition of the appellant near about the date of incident. Therefore, the statement of Natha Singh and Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur that the appellant had been suffering from mental derangement cannot be more than hearsay and, as such, do not carry any evidentiary value. The appellant is closely related to Bhim Singh and Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur, being the real brother of the deceased, and he (the appellant) had been cultivating the land jointly with the deceased and Bhim Singh. Neither Bhim Singh nor Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur had carried information about the death of Mukhtiar Singh to the police. On the other hand, they had carried his dead body, soon after his death, to the village and then they immediately carried it to the cremation ground. All this happened within about half an hour after his (Mukhtiar Singh''s) death. So, the indecent haste in removing the dead body of Mukhtiar Singh from Civil Hospital, Lehra, to the cremation ground of village Khai is indicative of the fact that Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur, Bhim Singh and Natha Singh were out to hush up the matter, most probably, with a view to save the appellant, under the weight of blood relationship. Bhim Singh admitted that the police had taken objection against their conduct in removing the dead body to the cremation ground and had further said that they (the police) would make a case against him and his mother for disposing the dead body without informing them. It is, therefore, no surprising that Bhim Singh and Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur found it expedient to clear their aforesaid conduct by saying that the appellant was pagal (insane). So, firstly, we do not think that the evidence present on record can warrant a finding that the appellant was insane at the time of incident. Otherwise, too, the circumstances, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, whether taken singly or collectively, are insufficient to show that at the time of incident the appellant was, on account of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was not aware at that time that the act committed by him, in causing injuries to Mukhtiar Singh, was criminal. On the other hand, there are various circumstances which go a long way to show that he was fully aware that the act, committed by him, was wrong and contrary to law. As is evident from the statement of Shrimati Mukhtiar Kaur, the appellant had proceeded to the field in which Mukhtiar Singh was working after her return from there, where she had earlier gone with the meals. It shows that the appellant had taken precaution that his act, in causing injuries to Mukhtiar Singh, should not be witnessed by her. He did not carry any weapon and that shows that he had taken measures that Mukhtiar Singh might not be able to apprehend or anticipate any attack from him (the appellant). He gave at least throe blows with kassi on the head and forehead of Mukhtiar Singh and when Bhim Singh stepped forward, the appellant deterred him by the show of kassi. The appellant had then escaped carrying the kassi with him. He (the appellant) remained in abscondance for no less than four days and was apprehended by the police at Rattia which is far from his village-khai. He had then tried to evade the police. On his apprehension, it was found that he was carrying 10 grams of (sic). So, the circumstances, constituting the conduct of the appellant at the time and scene of incident and subsequent thereto, point out unmistakably that he knew that he was doing the criminal act in causing injuries with kassi to Mukhtiar Singh. We are, therefore, satisfied that the plea of insanity advanced by the appellant is not borne out by the evidence and the circumstances of the case and his case is not at all covered by section 84, Indian Penal Code.

It, thus follows from the discussion above that the trial Court was right in declining to grant the immunity claimed by the appellant u/s 84, Indian Penal Code, and he (the appellant) was rightly found to be guilty of causing the murder of his brother-Mukhtiar Singh. He has already been awarded the lesser penalty for the offence. So, the appeal is bereft of any merit and must fail.

Consequently, we maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismiss this appeal.