Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Mukand Singh Alias Rocky - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 1065 of 2009
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Tanu Bedi, Advocate, Pushp Jain, Advocate, H.S. Grewal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' required for conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Section 302 - Conviction upheld - Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant Mukand Singh alias Rocky under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for pushing a woman and her daughter into a canal, resulting in their deaths.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the events leading to the deaths of the woman and her daughter, the actions of the appellant, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the absence of a motive for false implication to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant Mukand Singh alias Rocky were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sharma, J. - This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions Case No. 9 dated 20.02.2008, whereby appellant Mukand Singh alias Rocky, who was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), was convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Harbans Singh made a statement before the police that he was a labourer by occupation and had five children. His eldest daughter Chhinder Pal Kaur was married to Bhinder Singh about ten years back. The husband of his daughter had gone to Doha Qatar, about two years ago. He along with his brother Kulwant Singh had gone to village Sivian on 22.12.2007 to meet his daughter Chhinder Pal Kaur. Harpreet Kaur, daughter of Chhinder Pal Kaur, fell ill, on the next day. At about 12.00 noon, Chhinder Pal Kaur brought her daughter to Faridkot for treatment, after leaving her son with them. At about 4.00 PM, Chhinder Pal Kaur informed the complainant through telephone that Mukand Singh alias Rocky had taken her along with her daughter to a road leading to village Machaki Mal Singh near the canal. He was forcing her to have illicit relations with him. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of his brother Kulwant Singh. They went to Faridkot. They got down from the bus on the bridge of the canal. They started proceeding towards Machaki Mal Singh. At about 5.30 PM, when they had just covered a distance of 2 kilometers, they noticed the accused giving beating to Chhinder Pal Kaur. Accused threw his daughter Chhinder Pal Kaur and her daughter Harpreet Kaur into the canal. The accused also fell into the canal. In the meantime, two persons came there on a Van. They tried to save them. However, the maternal grand-daughter of the complainant drowned. They took out Chhinder Pal Kaur out of the canal. She also died. Accused Mukand Singh came out of the canal himself. He was apprehended by the people. The dead body of Harpreet Kaur (maternal grand-daughter of the complainant) could not be traced out. The members of Sahara Club, Faridkot, took the dead body of Chhinder Pal Kaur to GGS Medical College, Faridkot along with the accused. Post-mortem examination was conducted. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. He examined one witness in his defence.
4. The accused was convicted and sentenced, as noticed here-inabove. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
7. Pw.1 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai along with Dr. Ram Gopal conducted post-mortem examination. They noticed following injuries on the body of the deceased :-
"(1) Reddish brown grazed abrasion 2.5 x 1.5 cms on the middle of the right cheek.
(2) Reddish brown linear abrasion 1.5 x 0.2 cms on the right side of chin."
The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and post-mortem was about 12-24 hours.
8. Pw.5 Dr. Vivek Kumar Goyal deposed that on 23.12.2007, he was in the Emergency Department, posted as Emergency Medical Officer.
