08 September 1995
Supreme Court
Download

SHRI SAT PAL Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SHRI SAT PAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/09/1995

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  201            JT 1995 (6)   379  1995 SCALE  (5)235

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.      Sat Pal,  the appellant  herein, and  one Des  Raj were placed on  trial before  the learned  Judge, Special  Court, Ferozepur for  committing  the  murder  of  Iqbal  Chand  in furtherance of  their common intention. The trial ended with an order of conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment  for  life  recorded  against  Sat  Pal  and acquittal in  favour of  Des Raj.  Hence this  appeal at the instance of Sat Pal.      According to  the prosecution case, Iqbal was a medical practitioner in his village Chak Burwala and, normally, used to come  back home  by 10  P.M. As, on September 20, 1984 he did not  return home  by then his mother Bishan Devi went in his search and found Sat Pal and Des Raj assaulting him with Kulhari and kirch respectively in the premises where he used to practice.  She immediately  raised alarms  and  attracted thereby her  another son  Gurdip, who  lived nearby  reached there. When both of them started shouting the appellants ran away with  their respective weapons. Iqbal, however, died in the meantime.      As Wasawa  Ram, father  of the  deceased, had  gone  to village Dilia  Ram  which  was  about  20  kms,  from  their village, Jaila  Singh, uncle  of Wasawa  Ram, was  asked  by Bishan Devi  to fetch  him. After  Wasawa Ram arrived in the following morning  Bishan Devi,  accompanied by him, went to the police  station and  lodged  an  information  about  the incident at  8.30  A.M.  On  that  information  a  case  was registered and investigation was taken by the S.I. Baljinder Singh. He  proceeded to the spot, held inquest upon the dead body of  labal and  after seizing the wearing appareis, sent it for  post-mortem examination.  He also  seized the cot on which his  dead body  was found and some blood stained earth and made  separate parcels  in  respect  of  them.  He  also prepared a rough sketch plan.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    In  course  of  the  investigation  the  appellant  was arrested on  September 24. 1984 and the shirt he was wearing was seized  by the  Investigating Officer  as he  found some blood stains  on it.  He then interrogated the appellant and pursuant to  the statement  made by  him recovered  a  blood stained kulhari.  The other accused was also apprehended and a  blood   stained  kirch  was  recovered  pursuant  to  his statement. After  examining  the  witnesses  and  completing other formalities of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet  and  in  due  course  the  case  was committed to the Special Court for trial.      The motive that was ascribed by the prosecution for the murderous assault  on Iqbal was that the appellant suspected liaison between his sister and the deceased.      The  appellant   pleaded  not  guilty  to  the  charges levelled against  him and contended that he had been falsely implicated.      To  prove   its  case  the  prosecution  examined  five witnesses of  whom Bishan  Devi (P.W.3)  and Gurdip (P.W.4), figured as  eye-witnesses. Besides, the prosecution tendered the evidence of some police officials, which was of a formal character, through affidavits and also exhibited the reports of the chemical examiner and the serologist.      Though P.W.3  and 4,  who narrated the prosecution case as detailed  earlier, were  subjected  to  searching  cross- examination on  behalf of  the appellant,  nothing could  be elicited wherefrom  it could  be said that their version was improbable or  unreliable. The  F.I.R. that  was  lodged  by P.W.3  on   the  following  morning  also  corroborates  her evidence.      The  learned   counsel  appearing   on  behalf  of  the appellant, however,  strenuously  argued  that  the  unusual delay of about 10 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and absence of any satisfactory explanation for such delay makes the entire prosecution case  suspect. According  to the learned counsel the murder was a blind one and only to falsely implicate the accused persons  a story  was concocted  by the  members  of P.W.3’s family  and F.I.R.  lodged on the following morning. The learned  counsel submitted  that if  the  uncle  of  the deceased could  cover a  distance of  20 kms,  to inform the deceased’s father he could have certainly gone to the police station, which  was at  a distance of 6 kms, only, that very night, to lodge the F.I.R. if really the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We do not find any substance in  this contention.  Considered in  the light  of natural and  probable human  conduct it was only expected of P.Ws.3 and  4 to  first report  the incident  to Wasawa Ram, father of  the deceased  and await his arrival before taking any other  action. No  exception can, therefore, be taken to such reaction  of P.Ws.3  and 4 nor can it be said there was an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. raising thereby a doubt about  the bonafides  of the  prosecution case. On the contrary, it  appears to  us, that having regard to the fact that the  incident took  place in the night at about 10 P.M. the  lodging   of  the   F.I.R.  in  the  following  morning immediately after  arrival of the father of the deceased was a prompt one.      The other  contention which was raised on behalf of the appellant  was   that  though   independent  witnesses  were available  none   was  examined  and  therefore  an  adverse presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act should have been  drawn by the trial Court against the prosecution. To buttress  the above  submission the  learned counsel drew our  attention  to  the  cross-examination  of  Bishan  Devi wherein she had stated that there were a number of houses in

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

an around the place where the incident took place. The above answer by  itself does  not support the above contention for there is  no evidence  on record  to show that anyone of the nearby houses  had witnessed  the incident.  While  on  this point we  cannot lose  sight of  the time  when the incident took  place  and  the  fact  that  a  reign  of  terror  was prevailing in the State of Punjab at the material time.      The  next   circumstance  that  corroborates  the  eye- witnesses is  the evidence  of Dr.  Mittal (P.W.1)  who held post-mortem examination  and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: 1.   Incised would  12 cms.  x 3  cms. on  the front lateral right side  on the  elbow with  muscles underneath partially cut, verticle and oblique in direction. 2.   Incised wound horizontal in direction 17 cms. x 12 cms. cutting through  the neck  except flap  of the  skin on  the right side  at the level of cervical vertebra (5th and 6th). All the structures including the spinal cord were cut. There were multiple  cuts producing  step ladder  pattern at  four sides. 3.   Incised wound 12 cms. x 1 cm. muscle deep horizontal in direction 2 cms, below injury No.2. 4.   Incised wound  5 cms.  x 1  cm.  with  bone  underneath fractured on the chin middle part. 5.   Incised wound  12 cms. x 3 cms. horizontal in direction with bone  underneath cut  at places on the left side of the face at  the level  of the  middle of the pinna. The lateral end was seen cutting the pinna. 6.   Punctured wound  0.75 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the front of the chest 6  cms. below  middle of  left clavical  with  margins inverted and  clean cut  parallel to  each other. The angles were sharp  on one side but slightly lacerated on the other. The wound  was going  backward and  injuring the  pleura and long tissues. 7.   Punctured wound  of similar description and size 7 cms. below the nipple injuring the left lung and the pleura. 8.   Punctured wound  of similar size and description 5 cms. lateral to  injury No.7  piercing  the  wall  of  the  chest injuring lung and diaphragm. 9.   Punctured wound  of similar size and description 5 cms. below injury  No.8 piercing  the abdomenial  wall peritoneum and injuring the soleen. 10.  Punctured would  of similar  description 0.5 cm. x 0.25 cm. on  the right  chest 2 cms. from midline at the level of the nipple bone deep. 11.  Punctured wound  of similar  description  and  size  as injury No.9 on the front of the abdomen midline 5 cms. below the sternum  injuring the  peritoneum and  left lobe  of the lever. 12.  Punctured wound  of similar size and description on the posterior side  of left  fore-arm 4  cms. below  elbow, bone deep. 13.  Punctured wound  of similar size and description on the front side of left fore-arm 4 cms. below elbow, bone deep." According to  him the  incised wounds could have been caused by the  kulhari (Ex.M/O/1).  which was  shown  to  him.  The statement made  by the appellant (Ex.P/10) pursuant to which the above kulhari was recovered from under a heap of turi in his field  also lends  assurance to  the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4.  The report  of the  Serologist and Chemical Examiner that besides the kulhari the seized earth, shirt & pyjama of the deceased  and the  charpai contained human blood also to some extent support the prosecution case.      Now  that  we  have  found  that  the  prosecution  has conclusively proved  that the  appellant had  assaulted  the

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

deceased with  kulhari on  his person,  the next question is what offence  the appellant committed thereby. This question arises  in   the  context  of  the  fact  that  it  was  the prosecution  case  that  both  the  appellant  and  Des  Raj committed  the   murder  in   furtherance  of  their  common intention; and  since the latter’s acquittal is not based on mistaken identity, the appellant will be liable for his acts only. It,  however, appears  from the  opinion of the doctor that injury  No.2  was  caused  by  a  kulhari  and  it  was sufficient  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  to  cause instantaneous death.  When the  nature and  location of  the injury No.2  is read  in the context of the above opinion of the doctor  the conclusion  is inevitable that the appellant is liable for the offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter.      For the  foregoing discussion we uphold the judgment of the trial  Court and  dismiss the appeal. The appellant, who is on bail, will now surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence.