Shiv Dhan vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

In the early morning hours on 28th January, 1988 accused appellant Shiv Dhan son of Giani Ram resident of village Butana is stated to have killed his wife Om Pati while she was lying on a cot inside his residential room of the rented house situated in Khatik Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Gohana, by throtting her neck by pressing it with his own hands while sitting on her chest. The occurrence was seen by Jage Ram, his collateral and landlord who lives in front portion of the same house near the entrance gate and Budh Ram alias Pappu his own son aged 12/13 years. Om Pati is stated to have died on the spot.

Statement Exhibit PJ of Jage Ram eyewitness to the occurrence Informing the basis of the First Information Report was recorded by ASI Siri Chand at old Bus Stand, Gohana, around 6.50 A.M. an 28th January, 1988. Formal First Information Report No. 33 was recorded in Police Station, Gohana, at 7.00 A.M. on the same day and the special report of the occurrence reached the area Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, at 8.10 A.M. within two hours and forty minutes of the occurrence.

On being charged with the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his own wife Om Pati, accused guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried appellant Shiv Dhan pleaded `not tried.

Vide its impugned judgment dated 29th October,. 1988 learned trial court convicted the accused of the commission of the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and vide his order dated 31st October, 1988 sentenced him to undergo, imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 200/ as fine for his conviction aforesaid. In default of payment of fine convicted accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and the sentence order aforesaid, Shiv Dhan has filed Criminal Appeal No. 619M of 1988 in this Court.

We have heard Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Shri S.S. Narula, Rajiv Trikha and M.S. Sidhu, Advocates, for the appellant, Shri Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State and have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

Out of the two eyewitnesses, Budh Ram alias Pappu turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support its version as PW1. After the death of his mother, the young lady aged 12/13, years had, of course to look to his father arrayed as accused for affection, protection and well being and it was, therefore, natural for him to adopt the course of conduct attributed to him.

Second eyewitness is Jage Ram PW4 states, "Around 41/2 months back after taking dinner normally the family of Shiv Dhan including Shiv Dhan and me had gone to bed around 11 p.m. Around 4 a.m. I had risen from the bed to make water, when I heard some noise. I had given a call to Shivdhan but he did not respond. I advanced towards the door of the room from where noise was coming but the door was found bolted from inside. There was a hole in the door and through that I had seen that Om Pati was lying on the cot and Shivdhan was sitting over her chest. Both Om Pati and Shivadhan were having some talk. I then considering that Shiv Dhan and Ompati being husband and wife might be having some private talk and I being elder brother, of Shiv Dhan did not further think it proper to stand there and therefore, had withdrawn. Thereafter, I heard loud cry of Ompati and again I had seen through that hole and found Shivdhan was pressing the neck of Ompati who had then silenced. Then I had asked Shiv Dhan that what he had done, but be did not reply to my query; but opening the other door abutting into the street, Shiv Dhan had slipped away". Out and out independent corroboration of the deposition of Jage Ram PW4 is forthcoming from the expert medical opinion of Dr. V. K. Bansal PW2, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gohana, who states. "On 2811988. I had performed the postmorterm on the body of Ompati wife of Shiv Dhan resident of Gohana at 2 p.m. She was brought to the hospital by Constable Ram Sarup and identified by Jage Ram. She was aged about 35 years. In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to throtting. This act was antemortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Another application Ex. PF made by Siri Chand ASI was received at 4 p.m. same day and on that request I had conducted the medicolegal examination of Shiv Dhan son of Giani Ram 40 years, r/o Gohana and found the following : He was having a lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.2 cm x muscle deep situated over the palmer aspect of distial phalynx of right thumb. Clotted blood was present in the wound. The possibility of this wound being caused by a teeth bite could not be ruled out. Simple by blunt weapon caused within 24 hours. I had made the entries in the original MLR register under my signatures, and the carbon copy of the same is Ex. PG". Detection of teeth bite injury adverted to by Jage Ram in his statement Exhibit PJ on the person of the accused in the course of his medicolegal examination after the occurrence vide report Exhibit PG knocks the bottom out of the plea of alibi raised by the accused in the course of his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and supported by Dariya Singh DWI.

Learned counsel for the accusedappellant then repeated before us the same arguments which were advanced by the learned defence counsel before the learned trial court and have duly been adverted to by it in paragraphs 18 to 29 of its impugned judgment. All the points urged therein were repelled by the learned trial court for cogent and convincing reasoning mentioned in the same judgment. Repetition of the same arguments over again before us does not add any force thereto at the appellate stage. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court for repelling those arguments would, therefore, be treated as part of this judgment of once and also be deemed to have had our approval as well for the same purpose.

Speaking of relation witness like Jage Ram PW4 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 394 : "Ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person and hence the mere fact of relationship far from being the foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth".

Extra prompt reporting of the matter to the police vide statement Exhibit P1 recorded at 6.50 A.M. and a receipt of special report of the occurrence by the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate at 8. 10 A.M. both suggest that the report made to the polite was not a concocted one. Where soon after the occurrence First Information Report is lodged as was done in this case it is difficult to believe that false story was concocted up. In almost similar circumstances this Court observed in Bhag Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1971 Criminal Law Journal 903 : "Thus, the copy of the first information report so promptly lodged was in the hands of the Magistrate concerned within 21/2 hours of the time when report was lodged. Prompt lodging of the report followed by prompt despatch of its copy to the Magistrate eliminates the chances of any time having been utilised to spin out false story and to introduce the names of the false eyewitnesses. The version of the prosecution case as incorporated in the first information report has been consistently struck by all the three eyewitnesses at the trial". In this view of the matter the guilt of the accused in murdering his own wife by throttling her neck stands brought to him beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The finding of guilty returned against him by the learned trial court is therefore, affirmed. The sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court is also commensurate to the offence committed by him. There is thus no merit in the Criminal Appeal filed by convicted accused appellant Shiv Dhan. Dismissed.