MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Madan Lal and Charanjit sons of Kishori Lal residents of Village Dhira, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur against the judgment dated 11.9.2007 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, convicting the accused-appellants under Sections 302/ 34 and 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") as also against the order of sentence of even date whereby they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/ 34 IPC on being found guilty of causing death of a new born child, besides, imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. They have also been sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 201/ 34 IPC, besides, imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution story is that a female child was born to appellant No. 1-Madan Lal and Sonia on the night intervening 31.3.2006/1.4.2006. The child was delivered by a midwife named Smt. Krishna, who later appeared as PW-7 at the trial and resiled from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. on 29.6.2006 by Sulkhan Singh SI, Incharge, Police Station, Division No. 2, Pathankot. Thereafter, the statement of the midwife Krishna was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on oath before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (D), Pathankot on 30.6.2006 from which also she resiled at the trial. Her statement was that appellants brought Sonia to her house for delivery of a child. The place of birth according to Krishna in her aforesaid statements was at her residence i.e. Mohalla Sunder Nagar, Pathankot, which is at some distance from the native village of the appellants. She stated that during the night Sonia was in an unconscious condition and at daybreak when all the three were about to leave she inquired from them about the female child born and she was told that the girl child had been given to some relation since the couple had already two daughters. These statements were recorded three months after the alleged date of birth/occurrence.

(2.) The complainant Bal Krishan, a Beldar in the Irrigation Department, made a statement before the police that at 9:30 AM on 1.4.2006 while on duty at Head Works, Village Dheera Jattan he discovered the dead body of new born child floating in the standing water in Spell No. 1. The Sarpanch of the village reached the spot so also a village resident. They found that the infant was a female child. On the basis of this statement, an FIR No. 60 dated 1.4.2006 under Sections 201/ 318/ 34 IPC at Police Station Division No. 8, Pathankot was registered against unknown persons. The infant was found floating without any apparel worn. Inquest proceedings were initiated. The dead body of the new born child was sent for post mortem under the supervision of Head Constable Inderjit and Constable Satpal to Civil Hospital, Pathankot on 1.4.2006 itself.

(3.) The crime remained unsolved with no clue with the police. The mystery suddenly unfolded after about three months of the death on 27.6.2006 when Surjit Pal/PW-6 made a statement before the police naming the appellants as accused of the murder of the infant female child on the intervening night of 31.3.2006/1.4.2006. Surjit Pal is a chance witness. He is stated to be in government service with no further particulars on record. He stated that on the fateful intervening night while returning from his dairy farm at 1:30 a.m. as he reached near the Head Works, he saw both the accused by flashing his torch towards them. He saw accused Madan Lal throw something in the water. There was a scooter also lying there. He neither accosted them nor had a word with them and went on quietly towards his house passing by the side of the accused. He stated that there were rumors in the village and it was "town talk" that a child was born to the house of accused-appellant Madan Lal and on the discovery of the body later in the day Surjit Pal said that he imagined that the dead body must be that of the child born in the house of Madan Lal. He stated that he did not disclose the events of that impressionable night to anyone including the Sarpanch nor any member of the panchayat nor he informed the police about it. His statement was recorded by the police in the village on 27.6.2006. He also stated that he was never cited as a witness by the police in any case before the present one. He denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness in about 8-10 cases of the police. Statement of Surjit Pal under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 30.6.2006. The accused were arrested on 29.6.2006.