Kuldip Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is an appeal filed by Kuldip Singh (hereinafter described as ''the appellant'') directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 1.9.1986. By virtue of the impugned Judgment, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 452 Indian Penal Code. By the subsequent order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. With respect to the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The relevant facts are that Surjit Kaur was the complainant at whose instance the First Information Report was recorded. Deceased Surjit Kaur was the mother of Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh had there other bothers namely Mohinder Singh, Gamdoor Singh and Bhag Singh. Gamdoor Singh and Bhag Singh lived at Chandigarh but in different houses. Darshan Singh lived with his mother Surjit Kaur in village Bhagrana. They had cordial relations with the parents of the appellant in the said village being neighbour.

On 25.12.1985 Darshan Singh was taking his meal in the kitchen in the village. The meal was being served by his mother Surjit Kaur at 11.30 A.M. Labh Kaur came to their house and informed that her husband was giving her beating and threatening her. The husband of Labh Kaur, Amrik Singh reached there. Amrik Singh and Labh Kaur started quarrelling with each other in the house of Darshan Singh. Surjit Kaur requested them not to do so. Labh Kaur went to her house while Amrik Singh stayed back.

After about 10 minutes, the appellant came armed with a Kirpan. At that time Amrik Singh and Surjit Kaur were sitting in the kitchen. The appellant asked the deceased (Surjit Kaur) to get on one side and that he would murder his father. Surjit Kaur told the appellant that she would not permit him to murder his father in her house. The appellant, however, insisted that if she did not permit the same, he would kill her. He gave a kirpan blow aimed at her head. The deceased raised her right arm to ward off the blow. The blow hit and injured the middle of the forearm of the deceased. The forearm was virtually cut. Some piece of the bone had fallen. The deceased fell unconscious. At this Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh raised alarm. Many persons of the village came there. The appellant made good his escape with the Kirpan.

Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh brought Surjit Kaur to Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh and reached at about 2.30 P.M. Bhag Singh also came with them. Surjit Kaur remained admitted in the institute for 3 days and was discharged on 28.12.1985.

The right arm of Surjit Kaur was amputated. After discharge Surjit Kaur was in the house of Gamdoor Singh at Chandigarh. She died of infection. The postmortem on the person of Surjit Kaur was conducted by Dr. Pawan Kumar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. He found the following injuries on her body :

"1. There was stitched amputated stump of right forearm 3" below the elbow joint. After opening the wound, evidence of infection and supporation was found."

The cause of death was opined to be septicaemia.

The investigation had been taken up by ASI Karnail Singh. Accompanied by C. Karam Singh he had gone to the house of Gamdoor Singh in Sector 47. He prepared the inquest report attested by Bhag Sigh and Gamdoor Singh. It was ASI Karnail Singh who got the postmortem on the person of the deceased conducted. On these broad facts, challan as against the appellant was filed.

In support if its case the prosecution had examined ten witnesses. The prosecution evidence was put to the appellant in the form of different questions who denied his involvement in the crime. The appellant''s case was that he has falsely been implicated to save the real culprits. No defence evidence was produced.

The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence held that the eye witness account given by the son of the deceased cannot be ignored and that it was the appellant who had caused the injuries on the person of Surjit Kaur resulting in her death. However, it was concluded that offences under Sections 326 and 452 IPC are proved. With these findings, the impugned judgment and the order of sentence were passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

The cause of death had been established from the statement of Dr. Pawan Kumar PW1 to be septicaemia. Keeping in view the said fact to be the cause of death, the learned trial court had held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Pertaining to this finding there has been no dispute raised at the bar.

During the course of trial the other witnesses who were relatives of the appellant had not been examined. The appellant indeed cannot take advantage of this fact because the prosecution rightly thought that they were not likely to support the case of the prosecution. Nonexamination of the said witnesses, therefore, will not in any way permit the appellant to take advantage. The Court will not draw adverse inference against the prosecution on that count, particularly when Amrik Singh and Hazara Singh besides Labh Kaur had been stated to have been won over by the appellant.

The solitary eye witness is Darshan Singh son of the deceased who appeared as PW3. He deposed that appellant belonged to his village. His deceased mother was living with him in the village. They had cordial relations with the mother of the appellant. On 25.12.1985 he was taking meals in the kitchen of this house at Bhagrana. His deceased mother was serving the food. At 11.30 A.M. Labh Kaur came to their house. She informed them that her husband was giving her beatings and was maltreating her. She was followed by her husband Amrik Singh. They both started quarrelling. They were told not to do so by the deceased. Amrik Singh stayed back while the mother of the appellant went to her house. After 10 minutes the appellant came armed with a Kirpan. He told the deceased and Darshan Singh to get aside because he wanted to hit his father. The deceased did not permit him to do so. The appellant gave Kirpan blow to the deceased. She had raised her arm. Her forearm was virtually cut through and through. The appellant made good his escape while the deceased was removed to the hospital.

The witness was crossexamined and added that the house of the appellant is about 100 yards from their house. The house of Sant Sohi falls between his house and that of the appellant. According to him their house and that of the appellant is in the middle of the ''abadi'' of the village. He explained that he had returned to the house from Patarsi at about 11.00 A.M. His mother was alone in the house. The witness stated that he had not heard the parents of the appellant quarrelling when he had passed in front of their house. He explained that because of serious condition of his mother, he did not go to Banur Police Station for lodging the First Information Report. He did not go there after getting his mother admitted in the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh.

The statement of the witness was truthful and rightly believed by the trial court. There were no cogent reasons forthcoming to shake the testimony of the witness. There was nothing to indicate that the witness was not present at the spot. There was no reason for the witness to depose falsely against the appellant. The number of witnesses do not matter. When the solitary witness is truthful, then there is no ground to reject his testimony. The trial court rightly acted upon it. In these circumstances, it was the quality of evidence which matters rather than quantity.

Further corroboration was provided by the statement made by the deceased Ex.PF. It was recorded by HC Amrik Singh about the circumstances in which she received the injures. This also indicts the appellant positively and the trial court rightly concluded that it was the appellant who caused the injuries on the person of the deceased with his Kirpan. There is no ground to take another view.

In that event it was urged that a lenient view should be taken in the facts of the case. In this regard it is not being disputed that when the incident took place, the appellant was about 18/19 years of age. The appeal has been pending in this Court for the last 10 years. He has lived under the agony that the appeal as such is pending. The punishment would be upon principle of utility in so far as it may promise to exclude greater evil. There is no controversy that the offence was grave but if all sinners were to be shot at sight, few may be left to bury the dead. In this regard his age, antecedents and character have to be looked into. It has already been noticed that appellant was about 18/19 years of age when the incident took place. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the appellant had bad antecedents. As regards the character, it is the slow spreading influence of opinion arising from man''s department in society also. There is precious little against the appellant. The offence was committed obviously when the parents of the appellant were frequently quarrelling. The deceased was incidently a victim. The appellant has already undergone more than four months of sentence. Keeping in view his young age at the time when incident took place and long years that have elapsed, the interest of justice shall fully met if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone with no interference on the fine imposed.

Subject to the aforesaid interference on the point of sentence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.