The State of Punjab vs Dalip Kumar

Kuldip Singh, J.—State of Punjab has preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 27.3.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which accused Dalip Kumar was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

The case was registered on the statement of Surinder Singh son of Atma Singh (Ex. PU), wherein he stated that he is resident of village Helran and working as a Munshi (Accounts Clerk) at brick kiln of Ravi Pal Sekhri, situated within the limits of village Fateh Jalal. His employer is living in Jalandhar City. He has been entrusted with the responsibility of supervision of brick kiln. Ravi Pal Sekhri had taken the land of one Joginder Singh resident of village Helran on lease for moulding bricks. The labour used to do the work of moulding the bricks at night also. He keep watch on the working of labourers and remains present there (brick moulding site) at night also. According to complainant, on the night of 11/12.3.1999 at about 1:00/2:00 midnight, Sudeshwar, a labourer was quarreling with his co-labour, namely, Dalip Kumar, who happens to be his brother-in-law (wife''s brother) on account of some money dispute. On this, Surinder Singh alongwith Reshma, wife of Sudeshwar (deceased), rushed to the place of occurrence. In their presence, Dalip Kumar gave 2/3 kassi blows on the head of Sudeshwar and he (Sudeshwar) fell down on the ground. Reshma raised the alarm of ''Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta'', saying that they owe money from Dalip Kumar. Dalip Kumar then gave kassi blows to his sister Reshma wife of Sudeshwar (deceased), which hit her right arm, resulting in deep cut. She also sustained more injuries. She raised the alarm of ''Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta''. Dalip Kumar fled from the spot with kassi. In the meanwhile, Sanjay son of Surja, resident of village Dilhat District Pakasu (Bihar) also reached the spot. Sudeshwar breathed his last at the spot in their presence. He (Surinder Singh/complainant) saw the entire occurrence in the light of the lamp. He was not having any vehicle with him. After leaving Sanjay at the spot, he went to village Fateh Jalal where he kept on waiting for his employer. In his absence, someone got Reshma admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. He was going to lodge a report when he met ASI Harpreet Singh at bus stand Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar, where his statement was recorded. ASI made the endorsement on the same, which was completed at 3:00 PM on 12.3.1999 and sent the same to Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, where formal First Information Report No. 71 dated 12.3.1999 (Ex. PU/2) under Sections 302 and 326 IPC was registered.

The police visited the spot and prepared inquest report (Ex. PQ). Site Plan of place of occurrence (Ex. PE) was prepared. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot, vide memo (Ex. PD). Reshma was approached by police for recording her statement, but she was found unfit to make the statement. Later on, her statement was also recorded on 15.3.1999. In the meanwhile, accused Dalip Kumar was arrested on 13.3.1999. On 15.3.1999, accused Dalip Kumar was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement (Ex. PV) that he has kept concealed the Kahi (kassi) used in the crime in the bushes near Tiba in the area of village Herlan and can get the same recovered. Accordingly, the accused led the police party to the said place and got recovered Kahi (kassi), which was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PV/1. Site plan of place of recovery (Ex. PV/2) was also prepared.

After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented in Court.

Accused Dalip Kumar was charge sheeted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, prosecution examined Dr. Jasmit Walia, Radiologist (PW1), Dr. Dinesh, House Surgeon (PW2), Dr. Baldev Singh, Medical Officer (PW8), Dr. Gurinder Kaur, Medical Officer (PW10), Arun Kumar, Worker at Brick Kiln (PW11), Dr. Parveen Kumar, Medical Officer (PW12), Reshma/injured (PW13), Surinder Singh/complainant (PW14), HC Surinder Singh (PW15), ASI Harpreet Singh (PW16) and closed the prosecution evidence.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied as incorrect the evidence led against him and pleaded that he had no dispute with the deceased. He had not caused any injury to the deceased or his wife. There was a dispute between the deceased and his wife, in which they received injuries, as a result of which deceased died. He was falsely arrested by the police in this case on 12.3.1999 at the instance of owner of the brick kiln and falsely implicated in this case.

In defence, accused examined co-labour Kirat Mal (DW1) and closed the defence evidence.

After hearing the Public Prosecutor, the learned defence counsel and going through the evidence, the accused was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Against the said judgment, the State of Punjab has come up in appeal before this Court.

We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State, Ms. Aditi Girdhar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused/respondent and have also carefully gone through the file.

First of all taking up the medical evidence, it comes out that when the post mortem of dead body of Sudeshwar was conducted on 13.3.1999 by Dr. Gurinder Kaur (PW10), following two injuries were found on his person:-

19x2 cm incised wound bone deep with clotted blood at its base was present on the face and head extending from left eyebrow to the left side of occipital region of skull. Pinna of left ear was found cut from its middle. On dissection of skull underlying bone was found fractured.

7x3 cm incised wound was present on the left parietal region. Clotted blood was present. Underlying parietal bone was found fractured. On dissection of skull cranial cavity was having blood and brain matter lying under the injury was found lacerated. Stomach contained 100 cc of liquor and small intestines contained bile and chyme and large intestine contained gases and faecal matter. Bladder was empty and no abnormality was detected in other organs of the body.

The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 2 to 4 hours. The doctor has opined that in this case, the death was not instantaneous.

Further, Dr. Baldev Singh, Medical Officer (PW8) has deposed that on 12.3.1999, he had examined Jarbal Rani (whose real name is Reshma) and found following two injuries on her person:-

Incised wound 9.5 cm x 5 cm x bone deep present on the psterolateral aspect of right fore arm 7 cm below elbow joint. Muscles exposed. Fracture of both bones ( radius and ulna) seen.

Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present on head 5 cm to the right of and parallel to the midline and extending backwards starting from the anterior hairline. Clotted blood was present. I advised X-ray of skull.

He further stated in cross examination that patient was brought at 2:05 PM on the said date, which is also recorded in the MLR. The statement of Dr. Jasmit Walia, Radiologist (PW1) shows that on the X-ray examination, fracture of right parietal bone of skull of Reshma Rani was found. Further evidence on file shows that Reshma Rani remained unfit to make the statement from 12.3.1999 till 15.3.1999. This is borne out from the statement of Dr. Parveen Kumar, Medical Officer (PW12). Reshma Rani was declared fit to make statement only on 15.3.1999 at 3:00 PM.

During the trial, Reshma Rani, who is the real sister of accused Dalip Kumar, turned hostile. While appearing as PW13, she stated that there was no quarrel with Dalip Kumar. Dalip Kumar did not assault her husband, nor caused any injury to her. The lengthy cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor failed to extract any favour from the witness. In this way, Reshma favoured her real brother.

However, Surinder Singh (PW14) supported the prosecution case. While appearing as PW14, he has stated that he is working as a Munshi at the brick kiln of Ravi Pal Sekhri, situated in village Fateh Jalal. He further stated that he used to supervise the work of moulding of bricks in the area of village Helran. About the occurrence, he stated that on the intervening night of 11/12.3.1999 at about 1:00/1:30 PM, Sudeshwar and Dalip Kumar were quarreling with each other on account of money dispute. Sudeshwar was the husband of Reshma, who is sister of accused Dalip Kumar. Reshma and Sanjay also reached there. Then, Dalip Kumar gave 2/3 blows of kassi on the head of Sudeshwar. He (Surinder Singh) alongwith Reshma raised alarm ''Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta''. Dalip Kumar then gave kassi blow on the right arm of Reshma and also caused more injuries to Reshma.

The learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, recorded the findings that the presence of Surinder Singh (PW14), the alleged eye witness at the spot, is doubtful. The presence of Surinder Singh was not believed. The other eye witness, namely, Sanjay was not examined. Reshma did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused was acquitted.

Now, this Court is to see as to whether the presence of Surinder Singh at the spot was rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar?

We are of the view that there are several factors, which show that Surinder Singh was not present at the spot. Surinder Singh was working as a Munshi at brick kiln and was dealing with accounts. His presence at the place where the bricks were being moulded as distinguished from the place where the brick kiln is working, is highly doubtful. The brick kiln was working in the area of village Fateh Jalal and the work of moulding of bricks was done in village Helran. Surinder Singh has stated in his initial complaint (Ex. PU) that he left Sanjay at the spot and went to village Fateh Jalal where he kept on waiting for his employer. Somebody got Reshma admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. The injuries described above shows that Reshma had received injury of deep cut on the right arm. She had also received head injury. The occurrence took place at 1:00 AM midnight on 12.3.1999. If Surinder Singh was present at the spot, he would have immediately arranged to shift Reshma to the Civil Hospital in an attempt to save her life. However, the medical record shows that Reshma was shifted only at 2:00 PM on 12.3.1999 i.e. after about more than 12 hours of the occurrence. This is unnatural. It is also unnatural that Surinder Singh being the Supervisor will leave the dead person at the spot. He will also not leave the serious injured employee at the spot and simply go to the brick kiln and keep on waiting for his employer, who according to his cross examination, visited the spot on next day at 12:00 noon. He has claimed in his cross examination that there was no phone at the brick kiln. He even did not try to make phone call to his owner Ravi Pal Sekhri. We are of the view that this is unnatural conduct of Surinder Singh. Had he been present at the spot, he would have immediately informed the owner of brick kiln regarding murder and serious injuries to one of their employees.

The medical evidence further shows that Sudeshwar did not die immediately after the receipt of injuries. The doctor has opined that the time elapsed between death and injuries is two to four hours. Meaning thereby that after receipt of injuries, Sudeshwar kept lying at the spot and was not given any medical aid and he died after two hours. This is contrary to the statement of Surinder Singh, who claims that Sudeshwar died at the spot. If Surinder Singh was present there, he would have certainly tried to save dying Sudeshwar by shifting him to hospital. The fact that nobody tried to provide medical aid to Sudeshwar for two hours and any treatment to Reshma for about 12 hours goes to show that Surinder Singh was not present at the spot when the occurrence took place. The occurrence took place at dead night. Probably, it did not come to the notice of anybody till next morning. This is the reason why Reshma was shifted in the afternoon to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. The police visited the spot on the next day at about 3:30 PM, as stated by Surinder Singh, which means that the police was also not informed about the occurrence till Surinder Singh made the statement. The possibility is that when on the next noon, Surinder Singh took a round of the brick kiln, he came to know about the murder of Sudeshwar and injuries to the Reshma and thereafter, the police was informed and Reshma was shifted to hospital. In these circumstances, the presence of Surinder Singh at the place of occurrence was rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Once, the presence of Surinder Singh is discarded, there is no incriminating evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

On the other hand, accused has examined Kirat Mal (DW1), who was also working at the brick kiln. He had stated a different story saying that there was quarrel between Sudeshwar and Reshma and that both inflicted injuries on the person of each other. The statement of Kirat Mal (DW1) also cannot be believed as it is contrary to the medical evidence. The injury on the head of Reshma could not be given by the deceased after he had received injuries and if Reshma had received injury, she was not in a position to give injuries to her husband Sudeshwar.

From the foregoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and is dismissed.