Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4540
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Paramjit Singh @ Pamma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM No. 36491 of 2018 in/and CRA No. 450-DB of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-11-2018
J.S. Bains, Advocate, for the Appellant; Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the Respondent
The court relied on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to establish the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Suspension of Sentence - Offence under Section 304-B IPC - Evidence Act, Section 106 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant was convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution's case was that the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased and put her on fire. The appellant argued that it was a case of accidental fire. The court considered the evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence and the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the injuries and death of the deceased. [ISSUES] The issues revolved around the prosecution's evidence, the appellant's defense of accidental fire, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court relied on the principles established in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra and other relevant cases to establish the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation. [FINAL DECISION] The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sharma, J. - Though the application was listed for suspension of sentence but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal itself is heard on merits.
2. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 19.01.2015 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in case No.223 of 2014, whereby the appellant was charged and tried for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months under Section 302 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 4.11.2013, a telephonic message was received from Police post, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana about the death of deceased Puja wife of the appellant, by burn injuries. SI Kulwant Singh, SHO, PS Sahnewal alongwith police party reached at Civil Hospital. FIR was registered and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The investigation was completed and after completion of codal formalities, challan was put up.
4. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He denied the case of the prosecution. He also examined one DW-1 Dr.Gurcharan Singh. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment very carefully.
7. PW-1 Bagicha Singh is the uncle (Chacha) of deceased Amarjit Kaur. According to him, Amarjit Kaur met with an accident and due to burn injuries, she died. The appellant was not at all responsible for this incident. Appellant received burn injuries while extinguishing fire to save Amarjit Kaur.
8. PW-2 Bholi, sister of the deceased, deposed that the appellant used to maltreat her deceased sister. He was harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She came to know that accused has given a danda blow on her head and thereafter she was put on fire.
9. PW-3 Gurmeet Kaur @ Rani, cousin sister of deceased, has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Bholi. She has also stated that her cousin was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry.
10. PW-4 Dr.Davinder Kumar conducted the postmortem examination. He has noticed following injuries on the body of deceased Amarjit Kaur:-
"1. Lacerated wound 2" x V" on left posterior parietal region, extending up to bone.
2. Swelling 1" x //' on the right occipital area."
11. He found larynx and trachea congested and soot parietal was present in larynx and trachea. There was underline fracture of parietal bone with subdural heamotoma. Small intestine was also congested. The injuries and burns were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved carbon copy of the post mortem report as Ex. PW4/A.
12. PW-6 ASI Swaran Singh, Investigating Officer arrested accused Paramjit Singh and at his instance danda was recovered. Site plan was prepared.
13. PW7-HC Dhanwant Singh collected the blood on a cotton swab. He also collected one plastic canister of kerosene oil. He also took into possession melted burnt plastic opener and also match box. The blood stained hair of the deceased were also taken into possession. Burnt clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/F.
14. According to the statement of PW-2 Bholi, sister of deceased and PW-3 Gurmeet Kaur @ Rani, the appellant used to harass the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. The matter was reported to the police. The case put up by the prosecution is that the appellant has inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased and thereafter put her on fire.
15. The post mortem was conducted by PW-4 Dr.Davinder Kumar. He has noticed underline fract
