Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 617 (RAJ)

Shiv Charon v. State of Rajasthan

2000-05-10

G.L.GUPTA, J.C.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Through this jail appeal, Shiv Charan has called in question the judgment dated 6.7.1993 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, convicting him under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are these. On 5.6.1992, Mohar Singh (PW 1) lodged a report to SHO, P.S. Kotwali stating therein that in the morning when he returned from the field to his house, he saw Shiv Charan fleeing from the house and when he went inside the house, he saw his brother Babu Lal in the pool of blood. It was also stated that Babu Lal had made a sign indicating that Shiv Charan was responsible for his condition. It was also stated that when Shiv Charan was going out from the house, he was having a blood stained knife in his hands. It was further stated that after some time Babu Lal succumbed to the injuries. On this report, a case under section 302 IPC was registered. During the investigation, the police inspected the site, held the inquest, got the postmortem of the body of Babu Lal done, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. After the completion of the investigation, a challan was filed. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.11.1992 framed charges under sections 302 & 324 IPC, against the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Mohar Singh (PW 1), Moti Lal (PW 2), Kiran Dei (PW 3), Dal Chand (PW 4), Laxman (PW 5), Roshan Lal (PW 6), Dr. Namonarain Meena (PW 7), Amar Singit (PW 8), Jangalia Ram (PW 9), Prahlad (PW 10), Ramesh (PW 11), Ramesh S/o Shri Sanwata Rama (PW 12), Ram Dayal (PW 13), Sunita (PW 14), Veena Devi (PW 15), Chain Singh (PW 16) and Pyare Lal (PW 17). Accused in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He examined his wife Laxmi Devi in his evidence. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held that Babu Lal had met homicidal death. He further held that the accused was the person, who had caused fatal injuries to Babu Lal causing his death. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 5. Shri Singh, learned anzicus curiae for the appellant, pointing out that in the FIR Ex. He further held that the accused was the person, who had caused fatal injuries to Babu Lal causing his death. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 5. Shri Singh, learned anzicus curiae for the appellant, pointing out that in the FIR Ex. P/1, the last two lines appear to have bee written after Mohar Singh had put his signatures, urged that the investigation was not fair. Pointing out that the prosecution has neither produced the knife nor the clothes of the accused in evidence, though they are said to have been seized during investigation, he contended that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. His further contention was that Kiran Dei, Sunita and Veena are interested witnesses and the trial Court has erred in placing reliance on their testimony. Pointing out that no blood was found in the hall or on the cot where Babu Lal was sleeping which, he argued, shows that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner and at the place suggested by the prosecution. He contended that the accused had suffered injuries but the prosecution has not explained them and therefore the version of the accused should be accepted and he should be acquitted. He, however, did not question the finding of the trial Court that Babu Lal had met homicidal death. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that there is no cause to disbelieve Kiran, Sunita, Veena, Mohar Singh and the other witnesses examined in the case. He submitted that the accused might have sustained injuries at the time Laxman and villagers tried to snatch the knife from him, when Laxman had also sustained injuries. His contention was that since there is nothing on record to indicate that the accused had sustained injuries when Balm Lal had suffered injuries, the plea of right of private defence is not available to him. 7. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration. 8. Kiran Dei (PW 3), who is wife of the deceased, deposes that her husband was sleeping or a cot when her brother-in-law ( nsoj ). Shiv Charan went there having a knife in his hand and inflicted injuries on the neck of Babu Lal. She says that she and Veena had caught hold of Shiv Charan, but he succeeded in fleeing. Shiv Charan went there having a knife in his hand and inflicted injuries on the neck of Babu Lal. She says that she and Veena had caught hold of Shiv Charan, but he succeeded in fleeing. She also says that the accused was having the knife while leaving the place of occurrence.Sunita (PW 14), daughter of the deceased, deposes that as she was sleeping on a nearby cot, she saw her uncle Shiv Charan coming and inflicting knife blows to her father.To the same effect is the statement of Veena Devi (PW 15) another daughter of the deceased, who says that she had seen the accused causing knife blows to her father. 9. True it is, Kiran Devi is the wife of the deceased and Sunita and Veena Devi are his daughters but the testimony of these three witnesses cannot be seen with suspicion on that ground. They being the family members of the deceased, it was natural for them to be present in the early hours of the morning. This is not the legal position that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be discarded out right. The requirement in the matter of relative witnesses is that their testimony should be scrutinised with caution. As already stated, the presence of the three witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural. It is not suggested in the cross-examination of the witnesses that they were inimical to the accused. The questions which have been put to the witnesses are that the accused was non-earning member in the family. In our opinion, simply on the ground that the accused did not earn, it cannot be accepted that the three witnesses could implicate him in a false case. It is beyond our comprehension that the witnesses would leave the real culprit and implicate their near relations in a false case.The question asked in the cross-examination of the three witnesses indicate that the accused had to 'cause injuries to the accused as he was beaten by the witnesses. This shows that the accused does not dispute the fact that he had caused injuries to the deceased. We shall discuss about the plea of right of private defence hereinafter in the judgment, but for the present, it may be stated that the questions asked in the cress-examination of the witnesses clearly indicate that the deceased had sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. 10. We shall discuss about the plea of right of private defence hereinafter in the judgment, but for the present, it may be stated that the questions asked in the cress-examination of the witnesses clearly indicate that the deceased had sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. 10. The testimony of the three eye-witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of Mohar Singh (PW 1), who is non-else than the real brother of the accused. Mohar Singh could not have any cause to falsely implicate his real brother, after loosing his one brother. Mohar Singh (PW 1) says that he had seen the accused having a blood stained knife in his hands. He further says that as he reached, Babu Lal, who having suffered murderous assault, could not speak, made a sign to indicate that the assailant was Shiv Charan-accused. The circumstance that the accused was seen fleeing from the house having a blood stained knife in his hand clearly goes to show that he was the assailant and non-else. It is significant to point out that in the cross-examination of Mohar Singh, it has been suggested that the deceased had not met the demand of money of the accused on which, Babu Lal and his wife and daughters gave beatings- to him. There could not be any cause for the deceased or his wife or his daughters to give beatings to the accused on his demand for money. The aggrieved person, on refusing to meet the demand of money,'could be the accused and not the deceased or his family members. It is thus evident that the accused had caused injuries to Babu Lal when he refused to give money to him. 11. Laxman (PW 5) deposes that on hearing cries from the house of Babu Lal, he saw accused running from the house having a knife in his hand and he made an attempt to apprehend the accused and in that process, he sustained injuries on his fingers by the knife of the accused. There is absolutely no cause to disbelieve the testimony of Laxman.The accused was charged with offence of Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Laxman. The trial Court has acquitted the accused under section 324 IPC. There is no discussion whatsoever in the judgment regarding the charge under section 324 IPC. There is absolutely no cause to disbelieve the testimony of Laxman.The accused was charged with offence of Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Laxman. The trial Court has acquitted the accused under section 324 IPC. There is no discussion whatsoever in the judgment regarding the charge under section 324 IPC. Simply in the last paragraph No. 22, it has been stated that the accused was being acquitted under section 324 IPC. The trial Court's order acquitting the accused under section 324 IPC without any discussion whatsoever cannot be held to be justified. However, the same cannot be interfered with without an appeal of the State. In any case by the evidence, it is fully established that accused has caused injuries to Laxman by a knife when he tried to apprehend him. 12. Moti Lal (PW 2) deposes that on hearing the noise, he had seen Babu Lal bleeding from his neck injuries and the 'Mohallawalas' catching hold of Shiv Charan accused. There is no cause to disbelieve him. 13. By the evidence discussed above, it is fully established that the accused was the person who had caused injuries by knife to the deceased. 13. The contentions that the knife and the clothes have not been produced in evidence and that blood was not found in the hall are not of much significance in view of the fact that the direct evidence is worthy of credence and the accused does not dispute the fact that he had caused injuries to Babu Lal. 14. A reading of the FIR, Ex. P/1 does indicate that after the word ( izkFkh ) was written the line reading ( yFkiFk Fkk ckcq yky us f'kopj.k dh rjQ b'kkjk fd;kA ) was written. However, by that it cannot be inferred that the above line was added after lodging the report. It is possible that the same was written by the scribe at the time of writing the report. No question as to the above contention was asked to Mohar Singh. Had a question been asked to Mohar Singh, he could explain in what circumstances the last line of the report was written after writing the word ( izkFkhZ ) Without any such question it cannot be presumed that the line was written during the investigation of the case. 15. Had a question been asked to Mohar Singh, he could explain in what circumstances the last line of the report was written after writing the word ( izkFkhZ ) Without any such question it cannot be presumed that the line was written during the investigation of the case. 15. Now, we switch over to the pleas that have been taken by the accused in the cross-examination of the witnesses. First, it may, be stated that in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused does not state about the pleas that he was of unsound mind at the time of occurrence or that he had caused injuries in exercise of right of private defence. 16. As to the plea of unsoundness, there is no hesitation in saying that it is not proved by any evidence whatsoever. What has been stated by the witnesses is that the accused did not earn and he looked like absent minded. A person who does not earn anything and does not involve him in some activities,-is bound to look like absent minded. At the same time, he becomes quarrelsome. But that does not establish that at the time the accused committed the offence he, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. That being so, Section 84 of the IPC, cannto be invoked by the accused. 17. As to the plea of right of private defence, it may be stated that all the three witnesses have denied that they or Babu Lal had given beatings to the accused. It may be that some injuries were found on the person of the accused on 5.6.1992,which were of within 24 hours duration, but that does not establish that the accused had sustained injuries before he had caused injuries to Babu Lal. It is in evidence that the accused had tried to run away from the place of occurrence having knife in his hand and the villagers had tried to catch hold of him, and Laxman had suffered injuries at that time. It is, thus, obvious that the accused had sustained injuries when the villagers tried to apprehend him. In our considered opinion, the plea of the accused, coming through the cross-examination of the witnesses, that he had to cause injuries to Babu Lal in exercise of right of private defence, is not established. It is, thus, obvious that the accused had sustained injuries when the villagers tried to apprehend him. In our considered opinion, the plea of the accused, coming through the cross-examination of the witnesses, that he had to cause injuries to Babu Lal in exercise of right of private defence, is not established. The trial Court, has rightly convicted the accused under section 302IPC. We find no cause to interfere in his conviction. 18. Consequently, there being no merit in the case it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******