MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment dated November 19, 1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby he convicted and sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code. Co -accused Hamir Singh was acquitted by the trial Court under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code by giving him the benefit of doubt.

(2.) STORY of the prosecution is unfolded by Kirpal Singh (deceased) in his dying declaration, Exhibit PQ. He has stated that he is residing in Mohalla Guru Nanak Pura, Bathinda. He has five children. He is employed as a Home Guard and is posted at Kotwali Bathinda. On December 12, 1995 at 9.30 P.M., he came to his house from Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, after he had finished his work. After putting away his uniform, he went to the kitchen for taking his meals. His wife Mohinder Kaur and daughter Pinki were present in the kitchen. Manjit Singh son of Santa Singh and Hamir Singh, who is the brother - in -law (sisters husband) of Manjit Singh and one more person, who he could not identify, came to his house. They came to the kitchen and sprinkled kerosene oil on him. Hamir Singh set him on fire. He and his wife made a noise. Appellant Manjit Singh along with others, ran away. Sheela Kaur, wife of Manjit Singh, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 72,000/ - in cash. On demand of this amount, Appellant quarreled with the deceased. Due to this quarrel, the police had also bound down both the parties under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the case of the prosecution on several grounds. He has stated that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report. Occurrence had taken place on December 12, 1995 at 9.30 P.M. Kirpal Singh was taken to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda by Karnail Singh, his neighbor. They reached the Civil Hospital at 10.30 P.M. Medico -legal Report, Exhibit PA, was prepared at 11.15 P.M. Ruqa. Exhibit PB was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda on December 12, 1995 at 11.00 P.M. by the doctor. Daily Diary Report, Exhibit PF, was recorded at 00.50 A.M. on December 13, 1995. Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Dharam Pal moved an application, Exhibit PC, at 1.30 A.M. on December 13, 1995 before the Doctor In charge, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, to record the statement of Kirpal Singh. As he was not fit to make a statement, the doctor refused to grant him permission to record his statement. The Investigating Officer then went to the house of Kirpal Singh at 2.00 A.M., but no one was present there. Dharam Pal, Sub Inspector, came back to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda at 11.10 A.M. on December 13, 1995, where he recorded the statement of Kirpal Singh. First Information Report was registered initially under Sections 307/452/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence was converted into under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, after the death of Kirpal Singh. Learned Counsel has stated that there is a delay of 13.30 hours in registering the First Information Report and delay of 08 hours in sending the special report to the Magistrate. There is a total delay of 20 hours between lodging the First Information Report and the special report reaching the Ilaqa Magistrate. This delay has gone unexplained. The distance between the place of occurrence, hospital and the Police Station Kotwali Bathinda is within a radius of 02 to 03 K Ms. Learned Counsel has further stated that the Investigating Officer has wrongly stated that in the Civil Hospital at Bathinda, neither any eye -witness, nor any such person, who could have shed light on the occurrence, was present.