SARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under S. 379, Cr.P.C. read with S. 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are three appellants. Sardul Singh, Al is the father of Satnam Singh, A2 and Mohan Singh. A3. They were tried by the Sessions Judge, Patiala for offences punishable under Ss. 302/ 34 and 323/ 34, I.P.C. but were acquitted. The State of Punjab filed an appeal against the said order of acquittal and the High Court by the impugned judgment accepted the State appeal and set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them under Ss. 302/34, J.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Satnam Singh, A2 was further convicted under 5. 323, I.P.C. and the other two accused were also convicted under Ss. 323/ 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) This is a case of matricide. As already mentioned, Al is the father of A2 and A3. P.W. 2, Malook Singh is the brother of Al. The father of P.W. 2 and Al died four years prior to the occurrence leaving 19 killas of land which was divided into three shares. 7 killas each came to the share of Al Sardul Singh and P.W. 2 Malook Singh and remaining 5 Killas remained with their mother Sant Kaur, the deceased who was residing with P.W. 2. Therefore the land of her share was also cultivated by P.W. 2. Al Sardul Singh, however, wanted that the land of the share of the mother also should be equally divided between the two brothers for which the deceased did not agree as she wanted to give her share to P.W. 2 who was rendering service to her. Therefore Al nursed a grievance against her mother. On 23-10-78 at about 9 or 10 p.m., P.W. 2 along with his wife Kapur Kaur, daughter Mahant Kaur and the deceased, after taking their meals. was sitting in the compound of their farm-house. While so Al Sarbul Singh and A2 Satnam Singh armed with gandasis and A3 Mohan Singh armed with a sua came there and dragged the deceased to the nearby Roori. Al gave a gandasi blow on her head and then A2 also gave a gandasi blow on her head and A3 gave a sua blow above her right eye-brow. Kapur Kaur wife of P.W. 2 in order to save the deceased lied herself on the deceased but A2 and A3 inflicted injuries on her also. Thereafter all the accused gave numerous injuries on the deceased and ran away with their weapons. The deceased died on the spot. P.W. 2 who witnessed the occurrence went to the Police Station and gave a report at 7.15 a.m. on the morning of 24-10-78 and a case was registered. The inquest was held over the dead body and the same was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor. P.W. 1, who conducted the post-mortem found 16 injuries all over the dead body and he opined that the death was due to injuries on the scalp and brain which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Doctor also noticed that the stomach of the deceased contained 150 gins. of semi-digested food. Another Doctor, P.W. 14 noticed three injuries on the person of Kapur Kaur, P.W. 3. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.

(3.) The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses namely Malook Singh, P.W. 2, his wife Kapur Kaur, P.W. 3 and daughter Mahant Kaur, P.W. 4 who figured as direct witnesses. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated. The trial Court rejected the evidence of these three eye-witnesses holding that the occurrence must have taken place sometime in the night and not earlier as deposed by these witnesses. In coming to this conclusion, the trial Court relied on the circumstance that semi-digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased and therefore the occurrence must have taken place long after having taken the food and not immediately thereafter as spoken to by the P.Ws. The trial Court observed that if the deceased had taken meals at about 8 or 9 p.m. as stated to by the eye-witnesses then the occurrence must have taken place some time around 1 a.m. and therefore the testimony of the eye-witnesses is completely contradicted by the medical evidence. The trial Court also pointed out some discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence. It was observed that the body was found near the Roori and not in the compound and the evidence of the eyewitnesses to the effect that the deceased was dragged to the Roori is not supported by the medical evidence inasmuch as no injuries due to dragging were found. The trial Court also pointed that according to P.W. 2 they were sitting in the compound of the house from where the deceased was dragged but P.Ws. 3 and 4 stated that they were sitting in the kitchen from where the accused dragged the deceased. According to the trial Court this is a material discrepancy which goes to the very root of the case. The trial Court also pointed out that there was a discrepancy regarding the spot where the electric light was there and there was improvement in their deposition in this regard namely whether light was in the verandah or in the kitchen. The trial Court also pointed out that the discrepancies regarding the manner in which the injuries were inflicted between the evidence of one witness and the other. The trial Court further pointed out that the evidence regarding the motive is not very satisfactory. These are the main reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused.