Uma Nath Singh, J.@mdashThis judgment shall also dispose of connected Criminal Appeal No. 271-DB of 1997 (Smt. Kashmiro v. State of Punjab), as both these criminal appeals arise out of a judgment dated 27.1.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case No. 214 of 1994 (Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1997), holding accused-appellant Sher Singh guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and accused-appellants Bakar Singh and Kashmiro Bai under Sections 302/34 IPC. All the three accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months.
2. A ruqa (Ex.PF) and the FIR (Ex.PF2) were recorded on a statement (Ex.PF/1) of Jamna Bai (PW3). She is the mother of deceased Lachhman Singh. Her statement was recorded by Inspector Nagour Singh (PW8) at 10.30 AM on 6.3.1994, when he was present at Malout Chowk, Fazilka. The FIR (Ex.PF/2) was recorded at 10.35 AM on 6.3.1994 itself. A special report was sent on the same day at 2.00 PM to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Jamna Bai (PW3) stated that she had five sons. Her two sons, namely, Lachhman Singh and Maman Singh, were married to the daughters of accused-appellant Sher Singh. Deceased Lachhman Singh was married to accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai, whereas Maman Singh was married to acquitted accused Lallo Bai. Deceased Lachhman Singh was staying in a separate house in his in-laws village for the past about 8-10 years, as he had no brother-in-law (wife''s brother). On the date of incident, the mother-in-law of the deceased Jatto Bai was ill. Lallo Bai, younger daughter-in-law of the complainant, had come to her parental house for the last about 15 days. A day before the incident at about 4/5 PM, the complainant being accompanied by her younger son Maman, had come to village Salemshah to enquire about the health of Jatto Bai. At about 9.00 PM, they were talking to each other. They had already taken the meal. Deceased Lachhman Singh asked his wife accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai to accompany him to their house to sleep in the night. Kashmiro Bai expressed her reluctance saying her mother was ill, so she would not go. She wanted to stay in her parents'' house only. On that count, deceased-Lachhman Singh and his wife accused Kashmiro Bai picked up a quarrel. Her younger daughter-in-law Lallo Bai (younger sister of accused Kashmiro Bai) and her grand daughter Rano Bai (daughter of deceased Lachhman Singh and accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai) also grappled with the deceased. At this stage, accused-appellant Sher Singh (the father-in-law of the deceased) got up and picked up a wooden log (balla) which was lying nearby and gave a blow on the head of the deceased, who was sitting on a cot at that time. Accused appellant Bakar Singh, who was also present there, got enraged and gave a soti (stick) blow on the left side of the head of the deceased. The deceased got up but fell down. When he was lying there accused-appellants Sher Singh and Bakar Singh gave further Soti and balla blows, hitting his neck and nose. On the intervention to rescue the deceased and on raising an alarm, accused Kashmiro Bai, wife of the deceased, gave a danda blow on his left eye, while he was lying there. On raising a further alarm "mar ditta mar ditta" (killed, killed), all the five persons, who participated in the offence, fled away from the house with their respective weapons. The complainant and her younger son Maman went near the deceased and saw him bleeding profusely from his nose. He was dead. They placed the dead body of the deceased on a cot and due to fear in the night, they remained sitting near the dead body after bolting the door from inside. In the morning, the complainant, after leaving her younger son Maman near the dead body of the deceased, set out for Police Station to lodge a report but since Inspector Nagour Singh met her on the way near Malout Chowk (crossing), her statement was recorded.
3. The police, after investigation, put up a challan against five persons, namely, accused-appellants Sher Singh, Lallo Bai (since acquitted), Kashmiro Bai and Bakar Singh, under Sections 302/34 and they were tried accordingly. However, Rano Bai, being a juvenile, was tried by a Juvenile Court. Accused Lallo Bai was given the benefit of doubt and hence, acquitted. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal.
4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Dr. Yash Pal (PW1) was posted as EMO, Civil Hospital, Fazilka, on 6.3.1994. He conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Lachhman Singh at 2.40 PM on that day. Jang Sher Bahadur (PW2) is a Draftsman. He prepared as scaled site plan (Ex.PE) with marginal notes. Jamna Bai (PW3) is an eye witness and also the author of the FIR. Maman Singh (PW4) is the younger brother of deceased Lachhman Singh and is also an eye witness. HC Jasbir Singh (PW5) and Constable Sucha (PW6), being formal witnesses, tendered their evidence on affidavits. SI Jaswant Singh (PW7) had accompanied Inspector Nagour Singh to the place of occurrence. He is also an attesting witness of the seizures. Inspector Nagour Singh, SHO, PS Kotwali, Sangrur, (PW8), is the Investigating Officer of the case.
5. Accused-appellants Sher Singh and Kashmiro Bai, in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication at the instance of complainant Jamna Bai (PW3). Accused-appellant Bakar Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., also pleaded false implication due to his relationship with accused-appellant Sher Singh.
6. Jamna Bai (PW3), who is the author of the FIR, has given a detailed description about the entire incident. She had gone to enquire about the health of Jatto Bai, the mother of her daughter-in-law. According to her, the incident took place soon after the meal in the night. She has supported the prosecution case and her statement before Inspector Nagour Singh (PW8). According to her, accused-appellant Bakar Singh is a cousin of accused- appellant Sher Singh. Accused-appellant Sher Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased, got enraged on an altercation between the deceased and his wife accused appellant Kashmiro Bai. He caused blows with Balla (Ex.P1) on the head of the deceased, while he was sitting on the cot. He was followed by his cousin Bakar Singh, who gave a soti blow (Ex.P2) on the head of the deceased. When the deceased fell down on the ground. accused appellant Sher Singh gave another blow on his neck and accused-appellant Bakar Singh gave a soti blow near his left eye. Accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai also gave a danda blow on the nose of the deceased. Lachhman Singh died on the spot. It is noticed in her cross-examination that she has attributed a soti blow to accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai, hitting the deceased on the nose, whereas, in her police station (statement ?), it is noted that Kashmiro Bai gave a soti blow near the left eye. Deceased Lachhman Singh was married with accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai about 20 years back. About 10 years, he stayed with his parents and thereafter, he shifted to live with his in-laws. It is also noticed in the testimony of PW3 that she asked deceased Lachhman Singh to return to his parental village but his wife did not allow him. However, the witness has clarified that she was not annoyed with her daughter-in-law on that count. It is noticed that accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai had baked chapatis (bread) and the incident took place after all the family members had taken the meal. They all were present in the courtyard. Another eye witness Maman Singh (PW4) has corroborated the evidence of his mother PW3 in material particulars. He has also mentioned that Sher Singh gave a wooden log blow on the head of the deceased. Accused-appellant Bakar Singh also gave a soti blow on his head on the left side. When the deceased fell down on the ground, accused-appellants Sher Singh and Bakar Singh again gave blows with their respective weapons which landed on his neck and nose. Accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai gave a danda blow to the deceased near his left eye. He also raised an alarm, The deceased was bleeding heavily in his nose and succumbed to the injuries. He has stated that he stayed with the dead body and his mother went to lodge a report to the police, He has stated that the occurrence had taken place just after 5 minutes of taking the meal. It is noticed in the evidence that PW3 and PW 4 were to accompany deceased Lachhman Singh to his house, if the daughter-in-law was to go. He has stated that he tried to intervene and save deceased Lachhman Singh. Moreover, he has stated that he did not receive any injury nor caused any to save his brother. He has also stated that Sarpanch and Lambardar came to the house of accused-appellant Sher Singh after about one and half hours of the occurrence. However, he has clarified that no person came inside the room, where he and his mother were sitting, as they had bolted it from inside. He has also stated that he narrated the incident to the Sarpanch and Lambardar. Jatto Bai was also inside the room. He did not seek help of the Sarpanch in lodging the FIR. He was weeping. He has denied the defence suggestions that he was not present on the spot or deposed falsely. SI Jaswant Singh (PW7) accompanied Inspector Nagour Singh to the place of occurrence. The Inspector lifted blood-stained earth and simple earth from the place of occurrence. The same were sealed in two parcels and taken into possession vide memos (Exs.PG and PH). The memos were attested by him and Jamna Bai (PW3). The seal of the Inspector after use was handed over to him. Sarpanch Jai Chand on 16.3.1994 produced accused-appellants Sher Singh, Bakar Singh and Kashmiro Bai and also acquitted accused Lallo (in the) Police Station. This witness arrested them. He recovered wooden log (Ex.P1) at the instance of accused-appellant Sher Singh, soti (Ex.P2) on the disclosure of accused-appellant Bakar Singh and sota (Ex.P3) at the instance of accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai. The recoveries were attested by Sarpanch Jai Chand and ASI Surjit Singh. He has denied all the defence suggestions in his cross-examination. Inspector Nagour Singh (PW8) was on patrolling duty near Malout Chowk on 6.3.1994. Jamna Bai (PW3) met him and gave a statement (Ex.PF) to him. The statement was read over to her and she impressed her thumb mark. He sent a ruqa (Ex.PF/1) and the FIR (Ex.PF/2) was registered by ASI Harbans Singh. The dead body of deceased Lachhman Singh was lying on a cot in a room of the house of accused-appellant Sher Singh. Maman Singh (PW4) and Surain Singh were present near the dead body. He prepared the inquest report (Ex.PB) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He lifted blood-stained earth and simple earth from the spot. He also prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PO). He deposited all the parcels with Head Moharrir Constable Jasbir Singh with seals intact. Further investigation of the case was carried by SI Jaswant Singh and after completion of investigation, he put up a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. He sent a copy of the FIR (Ex.PF/2) to the Ilaqa Magistrate. He has denied to have recorded the statement of Jamna Bai after inspecting the scene of occurrence and the seat of injuries on the body of the deceased. He could not find any male member present on the scene of occurrence. Only the women folk was present, who closed their doors at the time of occurrence. They did not witness the occurrence, therefore, their statements were not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
7. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of evidence, it appears that Jamna Bai (PW3) and Maman Singh (PW4) have substantially supported the prosecution case. Police officials (PW7) and (PW8) have also corroborated the prosecution story. The delay in lodging the FIR has satisfactorily been explained. In the night, due to fear, PW3 and PW4 remained sitting inside a room near the dead body after bolting the door from inside. The ocular evidence of PW3 and PW4 is duly supported by the FIR (Ex.PF/2) and the medical evidence. Dr. Yash Pal (PW1) noticed bleeding from nostril of the deceased. Rigor mortis was present on all the limbs. The clothes were blood-stained. He noted the following injuries :
1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm on the skull on the parietal region in the middle surrounded by swelling 8 cms x 8 cms. On removing skin, underlying subcutaneous tissue congested. Haematoma was present below the skin. Left parietal bone was found fractured. On opening cranial cavity haematoma 6 cms x 5 cms on membranes was present.
2. Swelling 6 cms x 6 cms on left parietal area 5 cms. above the ear was present. Subcutaneous tissue was congested. Below the skin haemotama was present. Left parietal bone was found fractured and depressed. On the opening cranial cavity ex-dural haematoma was present.
3. Swelling 10 cms x 8 cms on right side mastoid region and back of neck was present. On dis-section big haematoma was present.
4. Swelling 3 cms x 2 cms on left eyebrow lateral was present. On it, abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm was present.
5. Swelling 5 cms x 5 cms on nose present in the middle of the nose. Abrasion 1.5 cms x 0.5 cm was present. Nasal bone was found fractured.
6. Swelling 15 cms x 10 cms on right elbow and fore-arm present on posterial and lateral surface.
7. Swelling 13 cms x 8 cms on left side of chest, lateral surface in the middle on it linear abrasion 10 cms x 0.25 cm. was present.
8. Blackish contusion 10 cms x 1.5 cms on the right side of neck in the middle horizontal in direction. Underlying subcutaneous tissue was congested.
8. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to vital part brain, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. According to Jamna Bai (PW3), accused appellant Kashmiro Bai gave a danda blow on the nose of the deceased and accused-appellant Bakar Singh gave a soti blow near his left eye. However, in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai gave a soti blow near the left eye. Maman Singh (PW4) has also stated that accused- appellant Kashmiro Bai gave a danda blow to the deceased near his left eye and accused appellant Bakar Singh gave two blows namely a soti blow on the left side of the head and again another soti blow on the nose. Vide injury Nos. 4 and 5, swellings were found located on the left eye and the nose but the injuries have been attributed to accused appellants Bakar Singh and Kashmiro Bai. It is noticed that the incident took place all of a sudden on a trivial matter. Both the husband (deceased) and wife accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai scuffled. It was a quarrel between the husband and the wife and other two accused-appellants Sher Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased, and his cousin Bakar Singh were not provoked to have dealt severe blows to the deceased, who was sitting on a cot without any arm. Accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai has not repeated the blow, whereas, two other accused-appellant did so. All the accused left the scene on occurrence only when PW3 and PW4 raised alarms. The could not be taken in custody till before 16.3.1994, when they surrendered in the Police Station.
9. Thus, in this background Crl. Appeal No 203-DB of 1997 is hereby dismissed. However, the case of accused-appellant Kashmiro Bai stands on a different footing in the premises discussed herein-above. Further Hon''ble the Apex Court in a judgment reported in
