PATTU LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 14(1) of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. This appeal is directed against the order dated November 28, 1984, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozpur, in trial No. 27 of 1984, arising out of F. I. R. No. 141 of 1984 of the Police station, Abohar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the appellate had strained relation with his wife Chameli Devi, having illicit relation with one Kirpal Singh. On May 8, 1984, P. W. 1 Bishan Dial, his brother Tej Ram and the wife of Bishan Dial, Dropati went to the house of the appellant Pattul Lal to get the dispute between the deceased and Pattul Lal settled. The deceased threatened to get divorce and marry Kirpal Singh. On the night of May 24 and 25, of 1984, P.W.1. Bishan Dial said Tej Ram and Dropati slept at the house of Pattu Lal and at about 6.00 a.m. on May 28, 1984, Bishan Dial got up on hearing alarm and saw Pattu Lal giving injuries to Chameli Devi with toka and Chameli Devi died at the spot. P. W. 1 Bishan Dial took his father with his blood stained clothes and the said toka Ex. M/G/1 to the police station, Abohar, where he lodged the FIR Ex. P. W.1. at about 7.00 a. m. On the basis of said FIR a case under section 302 of the India Penal Code was registered. P. W. 3 Shri Thakur Singh, Additional Station House Officer, took up the investigation who placed Pattu Lal under arrest and the blood stained toka and also blood stained clothes produced before him were seized. Thereafter, the said investigation Officer (P. W. 3) proceeded to the spot and collected blood stained earth under memo of seizure Ex. P. 7 and also seized the blanket and chadar of the deceased by seizure Memo effects Ex. P.8. Autopsy of the dead body of Chameli Devi was performed by Dr. Dalip Kumar on May 25, 1984, at about 3.30 p. m. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution examined Bishan Dial P. W. 1, the son of the accused and also the doctor holding the post mortem examination (P. W. 2 Dr. Dalip Kumar), the said Investigation Officer P. W. 3, and other formal witnesses P. W. 1, Bishan Dial was, however, declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. It appears from the deposition of P. W. 1 that his father and the mother were living together and Bishan with his wife and brother Tej Ram had been living separately in a different house. The said witness also admitted that at the police station he had given a thumb mark under the FIR. He also admitted that his brother Tej Ram also accompanied him to the police station. No plausible reason has been indicated by the said witness which might have prompted the said Investigating Officer to fabricate the said FIR on making false allegations. The investigating Officer specifically stated in his deposition that the accused was produced at about 7.00 a.m. at the police station by P. W. 1 Bhishan Dial himself and the blood stained clothes and the 'toka' with which murder had been committed were also produced by the said Bishan Dial. It may be stated here that the blood stained clothes and the toka with which the murder is alleged to have been committed had been sent for forensic test and the report is to the effect that the said clothes and the toka contained human blood.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has very strongly contended before us at the hearing of this appeal that in the instant case, the prosecution wanted to prove the charge of murder by examining Bishan Dial, who was stated to be an eye witness. But the said Bishan Dial has denied in his deposition that he had seen the occurrence and he has also denied that he lodged the FIR with the police station. He has specifically stated that in the police station, a thumb impression was taken from him. The learned counsel has submitted that such thumb impression has since been utilised in FIR and no reliance should be placed on such FIR. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the prosecution has not come up with a case of murder to be established by circumstantial evidences. On the contrary, the positive case of the prosecution was that the case of murder was witnessed by the son of the deceased. But the prosecution has failed to establish such cases because of the denial about the said case of murder by the son, Bishan Dial. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that simply on the basis of the deposition of the Investigation Officer, the case against the appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any convincing evidence by way of corroboration. He has, therefore, submitted that the prosecution case must fail by holding that it was a case of blind murder not proved by any convincing and clinching evidence.