Vikas Puri vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—The appellant Vikas Puri has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 31st of October, 1992.

The First Information Report with regard to murder of Atul Sablok came to be recorded by Labh Singh A.S.I. Police Station Ambala City on the statement Ex. PD made by PW-3 Anurag Sablok, real brother of the deceased, at 9.40 p.m. on 15th of August, 1991. The first information stated that he was resident of Khatterwara, Ambala City and was studying in the I.T.I. Ambala City. On 15th of August, 1991 at about 6.00 p.m. he along with his brother Atul Sablok alias Goldie, who was about two years younger to him, was viewing a movie on V.C.R. at their house. His brother Atul and he went out to urinate in the lane known as Bhiri Gali'' (a narrow lane). A young boy named Vikas Puri son of Rajinder Kumari Puri, resident of House No. 6996/ 4, Mohalla Kalal Majri, Ambala City came from the front side saying that he would teach a lesson to his brother for abusing him the previous day. He gave a blow with knife he was holding in his hand in the chest of his brother Atul in the left side. In the meantime, Kamal Kant son of Nathi Ram, resident of House No. 4031/2 and Virender Kumar son of Madan Gopal Sharma, resident of House No. 3887/2, Khattarwara. Ambala City also came in the street. They also witnessed Vikas Puri Striking his brother Alul with a knife and they ran to catch him but Vikas Puri succeeded in running away along with his knife. He, with the help of Kamal Kant and Virender Kumar took his brother Atul to Civil Hospital, Ambal City, where the doctor referred his brother Atul to P.G.I. As the condition of his brother Atul was very serious, he got him admitted in the Mission Hospital, Ambala City. In spite of the best efforts made by the doctors Atul succumbed to his injury. He was going to Police Station to lodge a report when ASI Labh Singh met him to whom he made a statement which was duly recorded. From the narration of facts, thus, it is clear that the occurrence leading to the death of Atul Sablok took place at 6.00 p.m. on 15th of August, 1991 at Khatterwara Ambala City which is stated to be at a distance of one kilometer from the police station. The First Information Report with regard to the above incident came into being at 9.40 p.m. on the same day, which as referred to above was recorded by A.S.I. Labh Singh on the statement of Anurag Sablok PW-3 brother of Atul Sablok. The Special Report reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala at 2.40 a.m. on the intervening night of 15th/l 6th of August, 1991.

With a view to bring home the offence against appellant Vikas Puri, the prosecution examined 3 doctors namely Dr. R. S. Takkar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Ambala City PW-1; Dr. N. K. Bedi, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City PW-5 and Dr. K. G. Gupta, Mission Hospital Ambala City PW-6. Dr. R. S. Takkar PW-1 stated that on 15th of August, 1991, he had examined Atul, son of P.S. Sablok aged 22 years and found the following injury on his person :-

Stabbed incised wound of 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm on the. left side of chest about 2 cm medial to the left nipple. Bleeding profuse was present. X-ray was advised of the chest. Banian sealed. Corresponding cut seen in the banian. Immediately shown to Surgeon and he referred the case to P.G.I. Chandigarh." The patient was unconscious. His general condition was very poor. He was gasping. His pulse and blood pressure were unrecordable and pupils were dilated. In the opinion of the doctor the kind of weapon by which he was inflicted the injury was a sharp-edged weapon The injury was, however, kept under observation by him. The witness also stated that he had sent ruqa Ex. PB to the Police Post No. 3 and the police had moved an application Ex. PC for seeking his opinion whether the patient was fit to make a statement. The information given by the doctor was that the case has since been referred to P.G.I, at 7.00 p.m. The duration of injury as per version of the doctor in between receipt of injury and examination was within six hours. Dr. N. K. Bedi PW-5 stated that on 16th of August, 1991 he had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Atul Sablok alias Gold who was brought by Head Constable Joginder Singh No. 504 and was identified by Sushil Kumar, son of Bhajan Lal Khatria and Brij Behari Lal, son of Bhajan Lal. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Atul Sablok:-

(1) Incised wound over the outer side of left thigh 3 cm x 1 1/4 cm muscle deep and was situated 12" above the left knee joint. There was a corresponding tear over the pant. Margins were blood stained.

(2) Stiched wound over left side of chest situated obliquely over the inner side of left nipple. Wound was 3 cm in length and on opening the stitches the wound was cavity deep. On opening the chest wall clotted blood underneath the skin and in the muscle fibre was found. There was an opening in the fourth left intercostal surface. Left plural cavity was full of blood. Pericardium was found injured over the left auricle measuring 1.5 cm x 1 cm. Stomach was found healthy and contained semi-digested food. Small intestine was found healthy and contained semi-digested food. Large intestine contained faecal matter and was found healthy.

In the opinion of the doctor, Atul had died of haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to his heart. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. K. G. Gupta from Mission Hospital Ambala City stated that Atul was admitted in Mission Hospital on 15th of August, 1991 at 7.20 p.m. with stab injury on his chest on left side. He was unconscious at that time and his pulse was very feeble. The patient had lacerated wound on left side of the chest 3 cm long bleeding profusely. On examination, the wound was going below the ribs and the same was stitched. The patient died at 8.30 p.m. on that very day. This doctor had also sent ruqa Ex. PM with regard to death of Atul to the police of Ambala City by the receptionist on duty. This doctor stated-that the injury on the chest of Atul was possible with knife Ex. P-1.

Out of three witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Anurag Sablok, real brother of the deceased, was examined as PW-3 where as Virender Kumar was examined as PW-4. The third witness Kamal Kant was given up as being unnecessary. These two witnesses, it may be mentioned at this stage, have fully supported the prosecution version. The prosecution also examined PW-7 Anil Kumar, PW-9 Inspector Jit Ram and PW-10 ASI Labh Singh. Other witnesses were formal in nature and there is no need to mention the statements given by them. PW-7 Anil Kumar stated that on 21st of August, 1991, he had accompanied Brij Behari Lal to Police Station Ambala City. One Police Officer Labh Singh was interrogating Vikas Puri appellant. During Interrogation Vikas Puri made a disclosure statement in his presence that he had kept concealed the knife used in an attache-case lying under the cot in room of his house situate at Kalal Majri Ambala City and he could get the same recovered. The disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded and the same was attested by this witness and one Brij Behari Lal. He had accompanied the police party led by the appellant to his house and there the appellant produced the knife. The witness saw the knife Ex. P-l but stated that it was not the same which was recovered. For that reason, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He was duly confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the police. Inspector Jit Ram PW-9 had partly investigated the case. He searched for the accused in the night intervening 15th/16th August, 1991 but the appellant was not traceable. He had surrendered before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala on 17th of August 1991 and therefore, he had arrested him on 20th of August, 1991. On completion of the investigation, he had submitted final report about the case. PW-10 Assistant Sub-Inspector Labh Singh gave the details of the investigation conducted by him in the matter. When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied all material evidence appearing against him and therefore, his participation in the crime leading to the death of Atul Sablok. He only stated that the witnesses were deposing falsely against him and he had no enmity with the deceased Atul and that he has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion.

We have heard Mr. R. S. Cheema learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Varinder Singh learned Deputy Advocate General who represents the State of Haryana and with their assistance we have gone through the records of the case. Mr. R. S. Cheema, perhaps, being convinced that this is just an open and shut case as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence one of whom, of course, is brother of the deceased whereas the other is an independent witness and has no grouse against the appellant nor is favourably disposed to the deceased and his family as also that the said witnesses have stood by the prosecution version in all its material details and that their evidence is cogent, convincing and inspires confidence did not argue anything whatsoever by which some dent could be made in the prosecution version to earn an acquittal for the appellant. He confines his arguments only to the nature of offence committed by the appellant. It is being argued that since there was absolutely no enmity between the appellant and Atul Sablok and it was a sudden affair emanating from exchange of hot words between the appellant and the deceased and that only one injury was inflicted, the case would not be covered u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and instead the offence would be u/s 304 Part I or 11 of the Indian Penal Code. To prop up the contention noticed above, the learned counsel basically relies upon the statement of PW-4 Virender Kumar who stated in his examination-in-chief that at 6.00 p.m. on 15th of August, 1991 he was on his way from his house to the bazar when he met Kamal Kant in the street. He started talking to Kamal Kant when he got attracted to an ..Iteration and when he looked back he found appellant giving knife blow to Atul Sablok. It is on the basis of this statement that it is sought to be made out that there was altercation preceding inflicting of knife blow by the appellant to Atul Sablok. To buttress the contention aforesaid, the learned counsel contends that there was no background of any previous enmity and that Anurag Sablok brother of the deceased as PW-3 had only stated in his cross-examination that the deceased had told him 5-6 days earlier to the occurrence that he was having strained relations with Vikas Puri. The narration in the F.I.R. with regard to exchange of hot words a day prior to the date of occurrence is said to be padding done at the instance of the police to make a fool proof case u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and it is for this precise reason i.e. time required for consultations and confabulations that the F.I.R. got delayed. As mentioned above, to strengthen the argument that the case falls u/s 304, Part I or II, Indian Penal Code, the added contention is that only a single blow was dealt with by the appellant to deceased Atul Sablok. Mr. Varinder Singh Deputy Advocate General, however, joins issue with the learned Counsel for the appellant on all the points stated above and supports the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge holding appellant guilty of having committed an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Having given our anxious thought to the solitary contention noted above, we find no substance whatsoever in the same. Anurag Sablok brother of the deceased first stated in his examination-in-chief that at 6.00 p.m. when he had switched off the video and had gone out along with his brother Atul to urinate, Vikas Puri appellant threatened his brother Atul that he will teach him (Atul) a lesson for abusing him (appellant). This part of the version has remained totally unchallenged. It is, thus, proved that it was not a sudden quarrel where the appellant might not have pre-planned the things. Read in that context, the cross-examination of this witness to which the defence has adverted to and which has been reproduced, it would rather show that there was previous background as the brother of this witness had told him 5/6 days prior to the occurrence that he was having strained relations with the appellant. In our view, this statement of the brother of the deceased rather goes against the appellant. That part, it is proved on the record of the case that the appellant lives although, in Ambala but entirely in different direction and at a considerable distance and he had no occasion to come to the street in which the house of the deceased was located. The appellant had a knife with him which is not a weapon which is normally carried by people and that too by a city boy aged about 18-19 years as the appellant is. We are of the considered view that the appellants had some score to settle with the deceased and for that precise reason he was keeping a knife in his pocket and had come to achieve the design entertained by him all through from his house to the house of the deceased. If before inflicting the knife blow, there was some altercation which may be with regard to some dispute between the appellant and the deceased which was simmering over from last few days, it cannot be said that it was a sudden quarrel that would bring the case of the appellant either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that the appellant had inflicted only one injury on the person of Atul Sablok. There was a second injury on his person which was not detected at the time when he was rushed to hospital or even for that matter by the doctors of Mission Hospital but that injury as per the stand of the defence is not that kind of injury which was a prominent one, yet the solitary injury caused by the appellant, in our view, is very serious one. It was incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm on the left side of chest about 2 cm medial to the left nipple and profuse bleeding was present. PW-1 Dr. R. S. Takkar stated that the general condition of the patient was very poor. He was gasping and his pulse and blood pressure were unrecordable and pupils were dilated. His condition was so serious that PW-1 Dr. R.S. Takkar had to refer him to the P.G.I. Chandigarh. The patient was, however, taken to Mission Hospital, Ambala where he died. Dr. K. G. Gupta PW-6 stated that the patient when brought was unconscious and his pulse was very feeble. The patient had lacerated wound on the left side of chest 3 cm long which was bleeding profusely. On examination he found that the wound was going below the ribs. PW-5 Dr. N. K. Bedi who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Atul Sablok stated that in his opinion Atul Sablok had died of haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to his heart and that the injury sustained by him was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The appellant, thus, even though had inflicted one injury but the same was so serious and was caused at the most vital part of the body of Atul that it cannot be said that simply because he did not repeat the stab blows the case would not fall u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Before we part with the judgment in all fairness to the learned counsel for the appellant, we may state that he had cited Radha Kishan Vs. State of Haryana, ; Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, and Khanjan Pal v. State of U.P. JT (1990) 3 (SC) 359, in support of his contention that the present case would fall u/s 304 Part I or II of the Indian Penal Code. These judgments, in our view, are distinguishable. In Radha Kishan''s case (supra) it was found that one of the accused who was convicted for murder by shooting was moving freely for nearly three days with the deceased and co-accused for the Shikar before the occurrence. There was evidence that the convicted accused and co-accused and the deceased were engaged in some heated argument when they passed the land of certain witness a few minutes before the occurrence. The convicted accused and co-accused were found to have consumed liquor when they were apprehended. They had confessed to the witness and others that in their inebriated condition they did not know what had happened. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the accused would not have intentionally shot the deceased with a view to kill him or even with a view to cause an injury which would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but must have shot the deceased either on account of some grave and sudden provocation in the course of a sudden quarrel attracting Exception I or Exception 4 to Section 300. In Surinder Kumar''s case (supra) the basic facts were that Mangal Dass was the owner of the house consisting of the ground floor and the first floor. The ground floor was occupied by Mangal Dass himself while the first floor consisting of four rooms and a kitchen was tenanted. Two rooms and a kitchen were rented to PW-4 Varinder Singh while the other two rooms were occupied by Sikandar Lal father of the appellant and Amrit Lal. PW-2 Kesho and his brother Nitya Nand belonged to village Narnaul. They had come to Chandigarh a couple of years back and were sharing the accommodation with PW-4. As Amrit Lal''s marriage was scheduled on December 7,1974 a request was made to PW-4 by Sikandar Lal to permit the use of kitchen for a few days. Possession of the kitchen was delivered to Sikandar Lal on December 4, 1974 on a clear understanding that it would be returned to PW-4 after marriage. PW-2 and his deceased brother Nitya Nand demanded possession thereof from Sikandar Lal. They were initially put off but according to the prosecution the possession of the kitchen was delivered on January 1, 1975. However, as the kitchen had to be cleaned it was not occupied by PW-2 and PW-4 till January 3,1975 on which date the family members of Sikandar Lal were stated to have re-entered the Kitchen. The possession of the kitchen was not delivered to PW-4 till January 3, 1975 and that led to the quarrel in which PW-2 received a knife injury on the neck and his brother Nitya Nand lost his life. On January 3, 1975, at about 7.15 p.m. PW-2 and his deceased brother had a heated argument with the appellant and his brother Amrit Lal in regard to the return of the kitchen. In the course of this heated exchange PW-2 is alleged to have showered filthy abuses although PW-2 denied that fact, PW-4 had admitted the same. PW-2 also threatened to throw out the utensils and lock the kitchen. Since PW-2 was uttering filthy abuses in the presence of the appellant''s sister and Nitya Nand did not restrain him, the appellant got enraged, went into the kitchen and returned with a knife with which he inflicted one blow on the neck of PW-2 causing a bleeding injury. In the melee the appellant inflicted three knife blows to Nitya Nand; one on the shoulder, the other on the elbow and the third on the chest, as a result whereof Nitya Nand collapsed to the floor and later died while on the way to hospital. It is from these facts that a finding was returned that it was a case of sudden quarrel and the appellant had not acted in a cruel and unusual manner and was, thus, entitled to benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts in Khanjan Pal''s case (supra) reveal that the appellant therein Khanjan Pal and the deceased Deep Singh were working in the bangles welding factory of Datta Ram in Mohalla Rajputana. The prosecution case was that while working in the factory at about 3.30 p.m. on 8th of April, 1972, the appellant told to the deceased that he had illicit relationship with one Tara. Deep Singh said that he considered Tara to be his sister. The altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased and in the course of altercation, the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife and this incident was witnessed by Ram Pratap Singh, Maharaj Singh besides Umrao Singh. From the facts as have been reproduced above, it was clearly a case of sudden quarrel without there being any premeditation. The facts of all the cases that have been relied upon by the learned defence counsel, in our view, are distinguishable from the facts of case in hand. In the present case the prosecution has proved the previous enmity or ill-will between the appellant and Atul Sablok. The relations were strained and a day earlier to the date of occurrence, there was exchange of hot words between the appellant and Atul Sablok. The appellant had walked all the way to the house of Atul Sablok which is at a distance of more than 1 Vi k. ms. and located entirely in different direction without any other specific purpose. It is not a case where the appellant happened to meet Atul Sablok by a sheer chance or coincidence. While going to the house of Atul Sablok, the appellant had armed himself with a knife which, as referred to above, is not a weapon normally or usually in possession of a city boy aged about 18-19 years. The exchange of hot words immediately preceding the infliction of knife blow, thus, in the back drop of the facts, as mentioned above, cannot come to the rescue of the appellant to reduce the gravity of the offence committed by him to either of the Parts of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

We, thus, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.