Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Sabir vs State Of Punjab on 29 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.463-DB of 2017
Date of Decision: 29th March, 2022
Mohd. Sabir
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Ms. Subhpreet Kaur, Amicus Curiae
for the appellant.
Mr. H.S.Grewal, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab.
****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence
dated 03.03.2017 handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur, in the criminal case arising out of the FIR bearing No.20 dated
03.03.2015 registered at Police Station City-I, Malerkotla, under
Sections 302, 307, 324 IPC whereby the above-named appellant has
been held guilty and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, for committing the
offence under Section 302 IPC and also to undergo imprisonment for
seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default in payment
thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months for
1 of 7
the commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC, he has chosen to
prefer the instant Criminal Appeal.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled by
complainant-injured Shehnaz against the appellant, are that she was
married to the appellant about three years before the date of occurrence
and a son had born out of this wedlock. She along-with her husband, i.e
appellant, had been residing at her parental house as she was the only
child of her parents and both of them had been working at Shorab
Factory. However, the appellant had been maltreating her and he used
to forcibly take away her earnings and to beat her. For the last two
months, he had been residing at his mother's place. On 03.03.2015, she,
along-with her father, was going to Saraud Chowk on a bicycle to board
a bus for the Factory. Her uncle Mohd. Habib was following them on
another bicycle. When they reached ahead of Saraud Octroi, they saw
that the appellant was already standing there and he took out the knife
from his 'Dub' (fold of the lower) and gave its blows in the abdomen
and on the left arm of her father and when she intervened, he gave the
knife blows on her both arms, abdomen, chest, neck and left leg. The
appellant also sustained injury on his face while they were trying to save
themselves. On their raising an alarm, the appellant ran away from the
spot along-with the said weapon. Her father succumbed to the injuries
at the spot. The appellant had killed her father and had caused injuries
to her also because of her refusal to hand over her earnings to him.
On completion of the necessary investigation, the Challan
2 of 7
was presented in the Court. On 04.06.2015, the charges were framed
against the appellant under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and he
pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial.
To substantiate its allegations against the appellant
(accused), the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses namely
Shehnaz as PW-1, Mohd. Habib as PW-2, Shashi Kanta as PW-3, Dr.
Daljinder Singh as PW-4, Dr. Shivanshu as PW-5, Devinder Kumar as
PW-6, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga as PW-7, Constable Navdip Singh as
PW-8, SI/SHO Harinder Singh as PW-9, SI Majid Khan as PW-10, HC
Inderjit Singh as PW-11 and ASI Sukhwinder Singh as PW-12.
Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State tendered the
report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as Exhibit PZ and closed the
prosecution evidence. Then, the appellant was examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C to explain the circumstances/incriminating material
appearing against him in the prosecution evidence on the record wherein
he has stated that deceased Abdul Sattar, his father-in-law, humiliated
him and pushed him and thus, picked up a quarrel with him and
Shehnaz also scuffled with him and they fell down on the iron scrap
lying there and sustained the injuries. In his defence evidence, the
appellant examined his brother Mohd. Halim as DW-1. After
appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led on the record during the
course of the trial and hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State as well as the defence counsel, learned trial Court recorded the
conviction of the appellant and awarded the sentence to him as detailed
3 of 7
in the opening para of this judgment.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned State counsel in the present appeal and have also perused the
record carefully.
Learned counsel for the appellant points out that while
appearing as PW-1, the complainant-injured has deposed during her
cross-examination that in routine, she did not take the bus from the
place of occurrence and he contends that this fact itself shows that the
alleged occurrence resulting into the death of the above-named victim,
i.e the father-in-law of the appellant and the injuries on the person of the
complainant, was not pre-meditated and rather, it was an outcome of the
sudden provocation to the appellant at the hands of the deceased and the
complainant which led to a quarrel between them and the appellant and
during the scuffle that ensued, they fell down on the iron scrap lying at
the spot as some iron factories were located near the same and it being
so, the offence in present case squarely falls under Exceptions 1 and/or
4 as appended to Section 300 IPC and is punishable under Section 304
IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC. She has placed reliance upon Sridhar
Bhuyan vs. State of Orissa 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 909.
Per-contra, learned State counsel argues that the appellant
was having strained relations with the complainant-injured, his wife and
had been nurturing a grudge against her as well as her father on this
score and due to this reason, he caused fatal injuries to the above-named
deceased and the injuries to the complainant attracting the offence under
4 of 7
Section 307 IPC and in such circumstances, the present appeal deserves
dismissal.
Admittedly, the appellant is the husband of the complainant
and the son-in-law of the deceased and he was having strained relations
with the complainant and had been residing with his mother since about
two months prior to the date of the occurrence. As regards the
contention qua the deceased as well as the complainant having sustained
injuries on account of their having fallen on the iron scrap lying at the
spot, it is pertinent to mention here that a perusal of Exhibit PW-9/F, i.e
the site plan of the place of occurrence (at pages No.91-92 in the Trial
Court Record), reveals that the places where the body of the deceased
was lying and the complainant is stated to have sustained injuries are
marked as 'A' and 'B' therein which happen to be the middle of the
metalled road. It seems highly improbable that the iron scrap would
have been left lying in the middle of the road which is supposed to be
frequented by several vehicles everyday. Moreover, in the said site plan,
no iron scrap is shown to have been found lying at the spot. Further,
during their cross-examination, PW-2 Mohd. Habib, an eye-witness to
the said occurrence as well as PW-10 SI Majid Khan, who accompanied
the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence, have categorically
denied the suggestion that the iron-scrap was lying near/at the place of
occurrence. In these circumstances, the afore-discussed contention does
not inspire any confidence.
So far as the contention qua the said occurrence having
5 of 7
taken place due to the sudden provocation and without pre-meditation,
is concerned, it is again worth-while to mention here that though, PW1
injured-complainant has stated during her cross-examination that in
routine, she did not get the bus from the place of occurrence but these
depositions, can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to infer that
she had never boarded the bus from the said place and moreover, the
appellant is alleged to be carrying a knife with him and to have attacked
the deceased and the afore-named PW-1 with the same. The very
factum of his having carried the knife at that time, in itself, negates his
version regarding the occurrence in question having taken place due to
sudden provocation/heat of passion and without any pre-meditation
because in normal course of events, no law abiding person can be
expected to be carrying a knife which could be used for causing fatal
injuries to any one.
The observations, as made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sridhar Bhuyan (supra), are of no avail to the appellant because the
facts and circumstances of the afore-cited case are distinguishable from
those of the present one. In the above-said case, the deceased had gone
to the house of the appellant to sort out the matter regarding the eve-
teasing of his cousin sister by his (appellant's) brother but a quarrel took
place there and the appellant went inside his house and came out with a
knife and caused injuries to the deceased with the same whereas in the
present case, the appellant was already present at the place of
occurrence and was having the knife, i.e the weapon of offence, with
6 of 7
him.
As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned judgment and order on sentence, as handed down by the trial
Court, do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or
perversity. Hence, the same are upheld. Resultantly, the appeal in
hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
29.03.2022.
seema
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
7 of 7
