Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 675 (RAJ)

Sharwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2000-05-26

G.L.GUPTA, J.C.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Having felt aggrieved from the judgment dated 6.9.1994 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, appellants Sharwan Singh, Matra Singh and Nop Singh have filed this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge had convicted them under section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case relates to an occurrence which took place on 1.3.1992 at 9.00 p.m. in village Churi-Ajitgarh in which Vikram Singh (25 years) was killed. In the FIR Ex. P/12 lodged by Bhanwar Lal (PW 13) on 2.3.1992 at 4.00 a.m., it was stated that having been informed by his cousin Niranjan Lal that Vikram Singh had been murdered by Rajputs, he went to the place of occurrence only to see Vikram Singh lying dead on the platform of the godown. It was stated that the murderors could be Sharwan Singh, Matra Singh, Nop Singh and other family members. It was also stated that on 29.2.1992 Sharwan Singh and Vikram Singh had a quarrel and on 1.3.1992 in the noon, Matra Singh had expressed his intention to kill Vikram Singh as he had quarrelled with Sharwan Singh. On this report, a case under section 302 IPC was registered. During the investigation, the police held the inquest, got the post-mortem of the body of Vikram Singh done by the Medical Officer, inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses, arrested the accused and recovered some incriminating articles at their instance. After the completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against three appellants and two others. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 14.10.1992 framed charges under sections 147 & 302 IPC, in the alternative 302/149 IPC against all the five accused challenged in the case,who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Mahabir Singh (PW 1), Niranjan Lal (PW 2), Gyan Chand (PW 3), Goma Ram (PW4), Dr. Megh Singh (PW 5), Tara Chand (PW6), Sriram (PW 7), Narendra Singh (PW 8), Raghubir (PW 9), Vishavnath (PW 10), Birbal (PW 11), Mahesh Kumar (PW 12),Bhanwar Lal (PW 13), Harish Chander Kulhari (FW 14), Berishal Singh (PW 15) and Prahlad Singh (PW 16). The accused in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the accusation. The plea of Nop Singh was that Vikram Singh had inflicted a 'Chhuri' injury to him and he had become unconscious. The accused in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the accusation. The plea of Nop Singh was that Vikram Singh had inflicted a 'Chhuri' injury to him and he had become unconscious. The plea of Matra Singh was that he had gone to village Agwana on the date of occurrence because his mother-in-law was ill. Accused-Sharwan Singh did not come out with any specific plea. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge held that Vikram Singh had met homicidal death. He further held that two accused-Labh Singh and Gaju Singh had not taken part in the occurrence and acquitted them. Believing the evidence of 3 eye-witnesses he held that three accused-Sharwan Singh, Nop Singh and Matra Singh were involved in the murder of Vikram Singh. He however has not relied on the recovery evidence. 5. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence has come to erroneous findings. According to him, the conduct of the five eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution was far from natural, inasmuch as neither they informed the family members of Vikram Singh nor did they inform the police or any person about the incident and kept mum for many days. Pointing out that Raghubir and Gyan Chand were interrogated by the police more than one and half month after the occurrence, he canvassed that they are made up witnesses and their testimony should be discarded. It was urged that service record of the witnesses has not been produced, which shows that there was no occasion for the wintesses to be present at the place of occurrence. Inviting the attention of the Court to certain discrepancies appearing in the statements of the witnesses, he submitted that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. He tried to show that the medical evidence does not corroborate the direct evidence produced in the case. Pointing out that accused-Sharwan Singh had only one arm, he emphasised that it could not be possible for him to inflict injuries to the deceased. He urged that the prosecution has not shown the genesis of the occurrence. He tried to show that the medical evidence does not corroborate the direct evidence produced in the case. Pointing out that accused-Sharwan Singh had only one arm, he emphasised that it could not be possible for him to inflict injuries to the deceased. He urged that the prosecution has not shown the genesis of the occurrence. His further contention was that Nop Singh and Sharwan Singh could not know that Matra Singh was having a knife with him and therefore, even on holding that Matra Singh had caused knife injuries to Vikram Singh, Sharwan Singh and Nop Singh should not be held responsible for the same. He contended that as the FSL report does not indicate that the blood found on the articles recovered at the instance of the accused, was of the group which was that of the deceased, the evidence of recovery is not of much significance. Shri Gupta cited the cases of Tek Chand & Anr. v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 228 , Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1993 SC 1977 , Din Dayal v. Raj Kumar alias Raju & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 537 & State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit & Anr., 2000 II AD (SC) 1 in support of his contentions. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Bajwa contended that the testimony of the eye-witnesses should not be discarded on the specious ground that they did not inform anyone about the occurrence or that they were not interrogated by the police promptly. It was urged that there is no inconsistency in the medical evidence and the direct evidence. It was canvassed that the report of the FSL connects the appellants with the crime as human blood was found on the clothes and the knife recovered at the instance of the appellants. Relying on the cases of Ramesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 1999(2) Supreme (Cr.) 271 , Ambika Prasad & Anr. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration, Delhi), JT 2000(1) SC 273 , State of Haryana v. Tek Singh & Ors., 1999(2) Supreme (Cr.) 1 & Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999(2) Supreme (Cr.) 436 , the Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court should not interfere in the conviction of the appellants. 7. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration, Delhi), JT 2000(1) SC 273 , State of Haryana v. Tek Singh & Ors., 1999(2) Supreme (Cr.) 1 & Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999(2) Supreme (Cr.) 436 , the Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court should not interfere in the conviction of the appellants. 7. We have given the submissions our thoughtful consideration During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that Vikram Singh had met homicidal death and we think rightly. Dr. Megh Singh (PW 5) states that he had held autopsy on the body of Vikram Singh at 10.30 a.m. on 2.3.1992, whereby he found that this pleura, both the lungs, heart, liver and large intestines were punctured. He opines that Vikram Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in his heart, lungs, liver and intestines, and that the injuries No. 1 to 9 could be caused by a weapon like knife and Katar. Dr. Megh Singh further opines that the injuries No. 3, 7 & 8 individually were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is hardly a reason to discard the expert evidence of Dr. Megh Singh. On the testimony of Dr. Megh Singh, the trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that Vikram Singh had met homicidal death. 8. The question that arises for determination is whether the appellants were the persons who were involved in the infliction of the injuries to Vikram Singh causing, his death. 9. Gyan Chand (PW 3), Goma Ram (PW 4), Tara Chand (PW 6), Sriram (PW 7) and Raghubir (PW 9) have deposed that they had seen the three accused persons causing injuries to Vikram Singh. According to them, Matra Singh had a knife in his hand and he had caused 3-4 injuries to Vikram Singh by knife and Nop Singh had caused lathi injuries to Vikram Singh. They have further stated that Sharwan Singh had first reached the place of occurrence and he had abused Vikram Singh and when Vikram Singh protested, he called the other accused telling that the enemy had come and thereafter the other accused reached there, having like lathis and Sariyas in their hands and caused injuries to Vikram Singh. They have further stated that Sharwan Singh had first reached the place of occurrence and he had abused Vikram Singh and when Vikram Singh protested, he called the other accused telling that the enemy had come and thereafter the other accused reached there, having like lathis and Sariyas in their hands and caused injuries to Vikram Singh. Out of these witnesses, Gyan Chand (PW 3) was the driver of the Jeep in which Vikram Singh had gone from Jhunjhunu Roadways Bus Stand to Churi and Raghubir (PW 9) was its cleaner. Goma Ram (PW 4), Tara Chand (PW 6) and Sriram (PW 7) are the persons who were in the service of the liquor contractor and were sitting at the place of occurrence from before the arrival of Vikram Singh in the Jeep. 10. An attempt was made by the accused to establish that the witnesses were related to some person and they have given false evidence because of that relationship. All the witnesses have emphatically denied to have any relationship with any person. It is significant to point out hat Tara Chand is of Mali community and the deceased was Raj put. So also, the other eye-witnesses are of Jat community. There could not be any cause for these persons to have come to depose falsely against the appellants. A suggestion was put in cross-examination of Raghubir (PW 9) that one Mohar Singh was cousin of Subhash, liquor contractor, to which fact that witness has pleaded ignorance. There is no evidence on record to believe that any of the witnesses was interested even indirectly in the deceased. The witnesses are therefore not partisan, but they are independent. 11. Goma Ram (PW 4), Tara Chand (PW 6) and Sriram (PW 7) were in the employment of the liquor contractor. All of them, had started working with him some three months before the date of occurrence. Of course, their service record has not been produced but that cannot be a cause to see their testimony with suspicion. The production of the record of their service was not at all relevant in this case. 12. All of them, had started working with him some three months before the date of occurrence. Of course, their service record has not been produced but that cannot be a cause to see their testimony with suspicion. The production of the record of their service was not at all relevant in this case. 12. The first discrepancy in the statements pointed out by Shri Gupta is that Sriram (PW 7) admits that Vikram Singh had taken a hen at the place of occurrence and that he was tearing up its wings when he was attacked, whereas the other witnesses have denied to have seen the hen and Vikram Singh peeling the same, though Raghubir (PW 9) in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex. D/3, had stated that Vikram Singh was peeling the hen. In our opinion this discrepancy in the statements is not of any significance. All the witnesses including Sriram (PW 7) and Raghubir (PW 9) have emphatically denied that Vikram Singh was having a knife or 'Chhuri' in his hand. It is possible that some witnesses did not notice Vikram Singh peeling the hen by hand or they did not remember this fact while in the witness box, but on that ground the testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded.The other discrepancy pointed out was that according to some witnesses, the beating had taken place inside the room while the others state that beating was given outside the room. What the witnesses depose is that the accused had entered into the room and had caught hold of Vikram Singh there and after taking him out from the room, he was given beating. It is significant to point out that according to all the witnesses, fatal injuries had been caused after Vikram Singh was pulled out of the room. 13. It is common knowledge that the power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. The rustic villagers, when are cross-examined by a refined lawyer, at times even the truthful and honest witnesses get confused. While appreciating the testimony of the witnesses, the ground relatives have to be kept in mind. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters have to be ignored. See : State of Haryana v. Tek Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 682 . 14. The rustic villagers, when are cross-examined by a refined lawyer, at times even the truthful and honest witnesses get confused. While appreciating the testimony of the witnesses, the ground relatives have to be kept in mind. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters have to be ignored. See : State of Haryana v. Tek Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 682 . 14. It is true that the five witnesses did not report the matter to the police or to the relatives of the deceased, but it is to be noticed that none of the five witnesses was related to the deceased. They were in the employment on the liquor shop for a period of less than there months. Gyan Chand and Raghubir being driver and the cleaner on the hired Jeep could not have any interest whatsoever in the deceased. Moreover, the occurrence had taken place in the evening in which three persons had attacked Vikram Singh causing his death instantaneously. It was natural for the witnesses to have frightened. There was nothing unnatural in their conduct when they ran away from the place of occurrence and chose to keep silence. They could muster courage to disclose the fact only when the police interrogated them. It cannot be lost sight of that different persons behave in different manner in similar circumstances. On witnessing the occurrence, some persons try to help the victim by active participation, while others only entreat the assailants, the third set of persons get frightened and run away from the scene of occurrence and go on recollecting the facts of the occurrence while sitting in their houses and they become almost dumb. In our opinion, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of their conduct that they did not report the matter to the police. The case of Din Dayal (supra) is distinguishable. In that case, the eye-witnesses were closely connected with the deceased yet they neither accompanied him to the hospital nor did they go to the police station. So also, the facts of the cases of Ashok Dixit, Tek Chand & Harendar Nath Mandal (supra) were very different. The cases relied on by Shri Gupta do not help the appellants. 15. In that case, the eye-witnesses were closely connected with the deceased yet they neither accompanied him to the hospital nor did they go to the police station. So also, the facts of the cases of Ashok Dixit, Tek Chand & Harendar Nath Mandal (supra) were very different. The cases relied on by Shri Gupta do not help the appellants. 15. In the instant case, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground also that they were interrogated by the police after some delay which is from 2 days to 50 days. Sriram was interrogated on 3.3.1992, Goma Ram and Tara Chand on 5.3.1992, Gyan Chand on 15.4.1992 and Raghubir on 23.4.1992. In this connection, it is perintent to note that in the FIR the names of the witnesses had not been disclosed. It is in investigation that the police came to know about the presence of these witnesses. Therefore, some delay was bound to occur in interrogating them. Apart from that, Gyan Chand (PW 3) who was the driver of the Jeep deposes that he had gone to Jaipur and had not returned to his village for 20-25 days because he was frightened. The name of Raghubir it is evident, was made known to the Investigating Officer only after Gyan Chand was interrogated on 15.4.1992. In these circumstances, the delay in interrogating Gyan Chand and Raghubir cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. The Apex Court in the case of Ambika Prasad (supra) had observed that the delay in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses is not always fatal to the prosecution case. So also in the case of Ramesh (supra), the Apex Court held that delay in examining the witnesses cannot be a valid ground to discard their testimony. The Apex Court in the case of Suneel v. State of H.P., 1997(2) JT 1 also has observed that non-interrogation of eye-witnesses shortly after the incident cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. In the instant case, the witnesses have been found to be reliable, and therefore, on the ground of delay in their interrogation, their evidence cannot be jettisoned. 16. The witnesses are not said to be inimical against the accused nor were they related to the deceased, and therefore they had absolutely no cause to depose falsely against the accused persons. In the instant case, the witnesses have been found to be reliable, and therefore, on the ground of delay in their interrogation, their evidence cannot be jettisoned. 16. The witnesses are not said to be inimical against the accused nor were they related to the deceased, and therefore they had absolutely no cause to depose falsely against the accused persons. The trial Court has therefore, not erred when it placed the reliance on the testimony of the five witnesses. 17. There is no merit in the contention of Shri Gupta that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the occurrence. There is clear evidence on record in the statement of Niranjan Lal (PW 2) that a day prior to the occurrence, there was quarrel between the deceased and accused-Sharwan Singh. Not only that, on the day of occurrence itself, Matra Singh had informed Niranjan Lal that on that day, they would kill Vikram Singh. It is obvious that because of the incident of 29th of February, the accused were enraged and they were in search of the opportunity to kill Vikram Singh and Vikram Singh happened to reach the godown on 1.3.1992. Since the accused persons resided in a house near the godown, one of them saw Vikram Singh and he called his other companions, and they succeeded in getting their aim fulfilled. 18. There is no substance in the contention of Shri Gupta that the time of incident does not tally with the medical report. The medical evidence shows that Vikram Singh had died about 12 to 18 hours before examination. Examination was conducted on 2.3.1992 at 10.30 a.m. It is obvious that the time of the occurrence which was 9.00 p.m. on 1.3.1992 tallies with the probable time of death as stated in the post-mortem report Ex. P/4. 19. Much stress was laid by Shri Gupta that no blood was found on the 'Chabutra' where the dead body was lying, which, according to him, shows that the occurrence did not take place in the manner stated by the witnesses. In other words, he wanted to stress that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. There is no merit in this contention. It is not correct that the blood was not found where the dead body was lying. In other words, he wanted to stress that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. There is no merit in this contention. It is not correct that the blood was not found where the dead body was lying. A reading of the site inspection memo Ex.P/16 and the site plan Ex.P/7 clearly shows that the blood was collected near the dead body and also under the Chabutra. It is evident that blood flowed from the Chabutra and collected on the earth. 20. In sum, the trial Court has not erred when it placed reliance on the testimony of all the five eye-witnesses and held that accused-Matra Singh had inflicted knife blows to the deceased and accused-Nop Singh had given a lathi blow to him and Sharwan Singh had exhorted both the other accused. 21. The version of Matra Singh that he was elsewhere at the time of occurrence cannot be accepted. His participation in the occurrence is well established by the reliable evidence of prosecution. Matra Singh has not led evidence to prove the plea of alibi. 22. It cannot be accepted that the trial Court has erred in holding that all the three accused had common intention to cause the death of Vikram Singh. It is relevant to point out that the appellants are real brothers. They had collected at the place of occurrence on the call given by Sharwan Singh and all of them had taken part in the occurrence one way or the other. It is pertinent to note out that the occurrence had taken place in the back ground of the incident of 29.2.1992. On the day of occurrence, Matra Singh had expressed his intention to kill Vikram Singh. All these circumstances unerringly lead as to hold that the appellants had shared common intention to cause murder of Vikram Singh. It is also not insignificant to point out that Matra Singh had inflicted as many as 9 injuries to Vikram Singh, and Nop Singh and Sharwan Singh continued to participate in the occurrence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Nop Singh and Shrawan Singh had not shared the common intention with Matra Singh. The trial Court cannot be said to have erred when it invoked Section 34 IPC to convict Sharwan Singh and Nop Singh. 23. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Nop Singh and Shrawan Singh had not shared the common intention with Matra Singh. The trial Court cannot be said to have erred when it invoked Section 34 IPC to convict Sharwan Singh and Nop Singh. 23. It may be that Shrawan Singh is handicapped because of one arm only but there is clear evidence on record that he had taken part in the occurrence. He was with other accused in pulling Vikram Singh from the room. It was he who had called the other accused by informing them that enemy (obviously for Vikram Singh) had had reached there. Sharwan Singh has been rightly convicted under section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 24. Nop Singh, admittedly, had suffered injury on his left side chest in the occurrence. His version is that Vikram Singh had inflicted that injury to him by 'Chhuri'. The witnesses have emphatically denied the suggestion put to them in this regard. They have explained in what circumstances the injury was suffered by Nop Singh. They state that when Matra Singh was inflicted injuries to Vikram Singh, Nop Singh came in between them and he sustained injury. There is no cause to disbelieve the witnesses. The involvement of Nop Singh in the occurrence is fully established. 25. The result, therefore, is that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused and the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting them. 26. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******