Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mewa Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 16 December, 2022
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M)
Reserved on: 08.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement:16.12.2022
Mewa Singh and another ...Appellants
vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
for the appellants.
Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 26.05.2004, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby, the appellants
were convicted under Sections 304/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
The brief facts of the case are that the FIR in the instant case was
got registered by Mohd. Punnu, by alleging that Mohd. Punnu, Ganpati Rishi
Dev and Rajan Punnu had shifted to Punjab from Bihar to plant paddy in the
fields of Gurdial Singh of Village Gopalpur. At about 2.00 p.m. on 12.06.2000,
Manoj Rishi Dev was bringing their meals on his bicycle and was crossing the
1 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -2 -
fields of Mewa Singh and Ranjit Singh, both appellants/accused. They objected
to this. Mewa Singh strangulated Manoj Rishi Dev by holding his hands,
whereas, Ranjit Singh started beating him. Manoj Rishi Dev raised a noise to
save him and on hearing the same, Mohd Punnu, Rajan Punnu and Ganpati
Rishi Dev reached there. They saved Manoj Rishi Dev from the clutches of the
assailants. After they reached at the spot, Ranjit Singh and Mewa Singh along
with parna (piece of cloth) ran away from the place of occurrence. Mohd.
Punnu, Rajan Punnu and Ganpati Rishi Dev shifted Manoj Rishi Dev to their
residential place and provided him treatment. On 14.06.2000, the condition of
Manoj Rishi Dev deteriorated and they were in the process of shifting the
injured to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and on the way, Manoj Rishi Dev breathed
his last. By leaving Santokh Singh, Ganpati Rishi Dev and Rajan Punnu near
the dead body, Mohd. Punnu and Gurdial Singh proceeded towards the police
station and reported the matter to ASI Jagpal Singh at Mattewal Chowk. After
recording the statement, ASI Jagpal Singh made his endorsement and sent the
writing to the police station for registration of the FIR. On the basis of the
statement made by the complainant, the FIR was registered under Section
304/34 of IPC and the inquest proceedings were conducted. After the necessary
investigation, the accused were arrested and after completing the investigation,
the challan under Section 304/34 of IPC was presented in the Competent Court
by the police.
After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned
trial Court ordered framing the charge under Section 304/34 of IPC against the
accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -3 -
In support of the prosecution case, seven witnesses were examined.
Dr. Harjap Singh was examined as PW-1, who along with Dr. U.S. Sooch
conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body on 15.06.2000 and
noted the following injuries:-
"Defused swelling all around the neck. On exploring big clotted
blood was present all around the neck in the subcut, tissue in
between muscles of neck. Big clotted blood was present around
larynx laryngeal oedema was present. Small B. vessels of the neck
found ruptured anteriorily."
He sent the blood sample from the heart to chemical examiner at
Patiala and also sent the viscera. As per the doctor, the cause of death was
asphyxia as a result of massive internal haemorrhage around the larynx and
neck and the oedama of larynx was sufficient to cause of death in ordinary
course of nature and was ante mortem in nature. He also exhibited the copy of
the post-mortem report as Ex.PA. He further stated that as per the report, no
poison was detected in the contents and he forwarded the report to the SHO. In
his cross-examination, he admitted that in a case of asphyxia, death occurs
immediately in the case of hanging. He could not comment if immediate
treatment was necessary of the person suffering from asphyxia. He further
stated that in case of asphyxia to treat the patient, first of all, the cause of
asphyxia should be released immediately and the other ruscitation measures
may be taken. The ruscitation includes oxygen therapy, intubation and life
saving medicines, and the treatment should be given to such a patient as early as
possible. HC Manjit Singh was examined as PW-2, who had deposited the
sealed parcel containing viscera with the Chemical Examiner, Patiala.
Constable Ravinder Singh delivered the special report and was examined as
3 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -4 -
PW-3. Karan Jaspal Singh, Patwari Halqa Dakha was examined as PW-4.
Jarnail Singh, HC was examined as PW-5, who was part of the initial
investigation conducted by the police. The prosecution further examined ASI
Jagpal Singh as PW-6, who had recorded the statement of the complainant and
made his endorsement Ex.PF/1 on the said statement, on the basis of which,
formal FIR Ex.PC was recorded by SI Kuldip Singh. Gurdev Singh, ASI was
examined as PW-7, before whom Beant Singh, Member Panchayat had
produced the accused Mewa Singh and Ranjit Singh and they were formally
arrested and then Ex.PG was prepared in this regard. He also conducted the
personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PJ. Further, Ganpati Rishi Dev
was examined as PW-8. He clearly stated that the deceased Manoj Rishi Dev
was his elder brother and they both had come to Punjab for plantation of paddy.
About 2 ½ years back, his brother was bringing their meals and when he was
passing through the fields of accused, the accused objected, upon which he
begged pardon. The accused started giving danda blows to him and also gave
fist blows. The accused also strangulated him by means of a parna. He was
taken to the hospital, but he died on the way. In his cross-examination, he
stated that he cannot tell the names of the accused present in the Court and they
had been coming to Punjab for about 2 years prior to the occurrence. They had
been going to other villages also for plantation of paddy. The prosecution
further examined PW-9 Mohd. Punnu and PW-10 Razaq Mohd., who turned
hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. After examining the said
witnesses, the prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed.
After the examination of prosecution witnesses was over, the
statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and both the
4 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -5 -
accused pleaded false implication in the present case. Even no specific reason
was assigned for falsely implicating the accused in the instant case. The
accused opted not to lead any defence evidence. Vide the impugned judgment,
the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned
above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able
assistance; I have gone through the trial Court record carefully.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the case
is based on the solitary statement of PW-8 Ganpati Rishi Dev, who is the real
brother of Manoj Rishi Dev (since deceased). The testimony of the said witness
clearly shows that he is interested in the success of the case and was liable to be
discarded by the learned trial Court. However, I find no substance in the said
argument. Relationship of a witness with the deceased is no ground to reject the
testimony of a witness, if it otherwise inspires confidence. In the instant case,
neither by way of suggestions nor in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
the accused have attributed any motive to PW-8 Ganpati Rishi Dev to depose
falsely against the accused and to involve them in a false case. The
complainant, the deceased and the other witnesses were migratory labourers
from Bihar and had no enmity with the accused, who were the residents of
Punjab. Even otherwise, PW-8 Ganpati Rishi Dev is the real brother of the
deceased and he would be the last person to involve an innocent person in a
criminal case and to spare the real accused. Even otherwise, the said witness
was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and nothing material could be
elicited from him and the testimony of PW-8 is found to be credible.
5 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -6 -
Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged occurrence had
taken place on 12.06.2000, whereas the FIR in the instant case was got
registered by the complainant on 14.06.2000 after unexplained delay. Even the
occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and other two witnesses; still the
matter was not reported to the police. This Court finds no substance in the
arguments raised by the learned defence counsel. The prosecution was based on
the testimony of certain migratory labourers from Bihar and the family was
busy in providing the treatment to the injured and their first priority was to
provide the medical treatment to the injured. Consequently, it cannot be held
that the delay had caused any prejudice to the accused and as observed above,
the complainant had no axe to grind and the delay in reporting the matter was
inconsequential. Still further, I find no force in the argument raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants that the two witnesses, namely PW-9 Mohd.
Punnu and PW-10 Razaq Mohd. had turned hostile as the testimony of PW-8
Ganpati Rishi Dev inspires confidence and was sufficient to base the judgment
of conviction by the learned trial Court. Even the testimony of PW-8 Ganpati
Rishi Dev was duly supported by the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Harjap Singh, who
had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body on 15.06.2000
and as per him, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of massive internal
haemorrhage around larynx and neck and the oedama of larynx was sufficient to
cause of death in ordinary course of nature and was held to be ante mortem in
nature. He further opined that any other contributory factor in the cause of
death was kept pending till the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner.
The viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala and after receipt of the
report of the chemical examiner, Ex.PB, no poison was detected in the contents
6 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -7 -
and consequently, the injuries caused by the appellants were held to be the
reason for causing death of Manoj Rishi Dev. Thus, it stands established that
the ocular account of PW-8 is duly supported by the medical evidence and thus,
the impugned judgment of conviction and order dated 26.05.2004 is liable to be
upheld by this Court.
During the court proceedings, the learned State counsel had
submitted the custody certificates of both the appellants. As per custody
certificates, Mewa Singh, appellant No.1 has undergone 02 years, 02 months
and 21 days of total sentence; whereas, Ranjit Singh, appellant No.2 has
undergone 01 year, 09 months and 05 days of total sentence. The sentence
imposed upon the appellants was ordered to be suspended on 25.07.2005 and
both the appellants did not indulge in any criminal activity. Only one FIR No.
192/2003, under Sections 379/411 of IPC, Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana,
is stated to have been registered against Mewa Singh. However, in the last
sixteen years, they had not involved in any other criminal case. Apart from that,
they are facing the agony of trial/appeal since, June 2000.
Consequently, ends of justice will be suitably met if their sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the amount of
fine is increased to total Rs.2,00,000/- (i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- each) from Rs.1,000/-
each and the appellants are directed to deposit the said amount with the learned
trial Court within a period of three months from today, failing which, they shall
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to inform the legal representatives of
the deceased. The amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the legal
representatives of the deceased-Manoj Rishi Dev.
7 of 8
CRA-S-1297-SB-2004(O&M) -8 -
In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction dated
26.05.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast
Track Court, Ludhiana is upheld and order of sentence is modified to the extent
indicated above.
With the above modifications, the present appeal stands partly
allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of. The trial Court record be sent back.
I record my appreciation for Mr. Balram Singh, learned Amicus
curiae, who had rendered able assistance to this Court.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
16.12.2022 JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
8 of 8
