Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 555 (ALL)

INDRASAN v. STATE OF U P

2002-04-16

K.N.OJHA, M.C.JAIN

body2002
M. C. JAIN, J. This appeal has been preferred by one Indrasan who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by judgment dated 20-8-1981, passed by Sri D. P. Srivastava, the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 1980. 2. The arguments were advanced in part on behalf of the appellant on 18-2-2003 by Sri Sharad Srivastava holding brief of Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. On the date fixed for conclusion of arguments (12-3-2003), none appeared from the side of the appellant who is represented on record by the said Sri P. P. Srivastava, Advocate. We have heard Sri A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State and propose to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The deceased was one Jawahar who was murdered on 14-10-1979 at about 8 A. M. in village Marrie, police station Nichlaul, District Gorakhpur. The prosecution case was that in the said village there was a Government Gausadan (a campus with pasture land where cattle are brought up and looked after) spread in an area of about 562 acres. There were certain residential premises as well in the campus for the employees of Gausadan. The contract of growing grass in Gausadan was given by auction and one Harindra Singh was the contractor. Govarpal Harijan was one of the employees in the Gausadan. On account of his illness, his son Jawahar (deceased) was performing his duties in Gausadan. On 13-10-1979 at about 2 P. M. 30-40 cattle including she-buffaloes of Govarpal Harijan were grazing in the pasture land of Gausadan. Meanwhile, a person of the contractor Harindra Singh came over there and after collecting the cattle took them to Nichlaul and informed about this fact to the contractor. Thereafter, Jawahar and other owners of the cattle went to Harindra Singh and requested him to release their cattle. Jawahar also implored Harindra Singh to release his she-buffaloes. Harindra Singh permitted him to take away his cattle. He also released the cattle of other persons. On 14-10-1979 in the morning time Ram Prahlad, Sahdeo, Pratap, the appellant Indrasan, and 2-3 person were sitting in the verandah of Gausadan. The appellant had a lathi with him. Jawahar happened to arive there. Harindra Singh permitted him to take away his cattle. He also released the cattle of other persons. On 14-10-1979 in the morning time Ram Prahlad, Sahdeo, Pratap, the appellant Indrasan, and 2-3 person were sitting in the verandah of Gausadan. The appellant had a lathi with him. Jawahar happened to arive there. Indrassan, who was the man of Harindra Singh, picked up his lathi and suddenly rushed towards Jawahar and gave a lathi blow on his head as a result of which he sustained head injury and fell down dying instantaneously. Ram Prahlad went to the house of Govarpal and informed about the fatal injury caused to his son. Govarpal rushed up to Gausadan and found his son lying there. He straightaway went to the police station Nichlaul, where he lodged the written F. I. R. the same day at 11. 05 A. M. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about 6 miles. A case was registered and investigation came to be entrusted to S. I. Vinod Kumar Yadav PW 7. He arrived at the scene of occurrence, prepared the inquest report of the deceased and completed other formalities, whereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. S. N. Singh Chauhan PW 6 on 15-10-1979 at 2 P. M. He found a lacerated wound on left parietal region 5 cm x 1 cm x skull deep, 8 cm above left ear. Clotted blood and fracture of bone beneath the said injury was found. Semi-digested food was there in the stomach and small and large intestine were loaded with faecal matter. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage owning to the above injury, which was found in ordinary course of nature to be sufficient to cause death. According to the Doctor, it had been caused by blunt object and the death could have occurred at about 8 A. M. on 14-10-1979. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses. Ram Prahlad PW 1, Sahdeo PW 2 and Ram Pratap PW 3 were witnesses of fact, whereas Govarpal PW 4 was the father of the deceased but not an eye-witness. 5. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses. Ram Prahlad PW 1, Sahdeo PW 2 and Ram Pratap PW 3 were witnesses of fact, whereas Govarpal PW 4 was the father of the deceased but not an eye-witness. 5. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity. The accused appellant further stated that when Harindra Singh was Thekedar of grass of Gausadan, he used to look after the affairs of Gausadan on his behalf. Govarpal, the witnesses of the case and the villagers often used to graze their cattle in the grass of Gausadan and he used to hand over their cattle at the cattle pond. According to him, they started nursing grudge against him resulting in false implication in this case. 6. To begin with, it is pertinent to state that the F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Govarpal -father of the deceased without loss of time. The incident took place on 14-10-1979 at about 8 A. M. and the F. I. R. was lodged by him at police station Nichlaul at 11. 05 A. M. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was six miles. He was not an eye-witnesses of the incident. The incident took place in village Marrie and this witness resided in village Bakuldiha which was at a distance of about 1 1/2 miles from Marrie. He was informed at his house about the incident by an eye-witnesses Ram Prahlad PW 1. Naturally, some time was consumed in Ram Prahlad PW 1 going to his house in village Bakuldiha and then the informant coming with him to the place of incident in village Marrie whereafter he went to lodge the F. I. R. All this being considered, there was no delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. and the possibility of any deliberation or concoction is completely overruled. 7. Secondly, though motive is not material in this case of broad daylight with eye-witness account of as many as three persons, namely, Ram Prahlad PW 1, Sahdeo PW 2 and Ram Pratap PW 3, yet the prosecution has proved motive also on the part of the accused appellant for the commission of this crime. Indeed, the proof of motive supplies additional strength and support to the prosecution case. Indeed, the proof of motive supplies additional strength and support to the prosecution case. The motive was that a day before the occurrence, i. e. on 13-10-1979 an employee of the Thekedar Harindra Singh had taken away the she-buffaloes of Jawahar deceased to Nichlaul from Gausadan where they were grazing along with cattle of the other villagers. Jawahar had then gone to Nichlaul to the house of Harindra Singh and pleaded for release of his cattle. The cattle were, however, released by him. Indrasan accused appellant was also the employee of Harindra Singh, grass contractor and it is apparent that he did not reconcile with the release of she-buffaloes of Jawahar the previous day and translated his grudge the following day by striking the forceful lathi blow on his head resulting in his death. Despite the release of his she-buffaloes by his master, the accused appellant continued to nurse grudge against him and it was the motive which motivated him to give a lathi blow to him at his first sight the following day after the release of the she-buffaloes. Different persons behave differently in a given situation, depending upon their mental outlook, background, breeding and allied factors. The release of the cattle of Jawahar deceased by his master the previous day was so ill taken by him (accused appellant) to his heart that he conceived to cut short his life over this issue. 8. Thirdly, three eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Prahlad PW 1, Sahdeo PW 2 and Ram Pratap PW 3 proved the prosecution case that it was the accused appellant who had struck the forceful lathi blow on the head of the deceased on his first sight. All these witnesses were the employees of Gausadan and their presence in the verandah of Gausadan at the time of the incident was quite natural. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and there could be no possibility of misidentification of the assailant who was very well known to them all from before. The testimonial assertions of the witnesses are to the effect that the accused appellant was also sitting in the verandah, but on the approaching of Jawahar in the verandah, he stood up and proceeded to him and gave a lathi blow on his head. As a result, he sustained injury and fell down dead. The testimonial assertions of the witnesses are to the effect that the accused appellant was also sitting in the verandah, but on the approaching of Jawahar in the verandah, he stood up and proceeded to him and gave a lathi blow on his head. As a result, he sustained injury and fell down dead. It is there in the statement of Govarpal PW 4, father of the deceased, that on account of illness, he was sending Jawahar to work in Gausadan in his place. Obviously, it was the reason for Jawahar having gone to Gausadan where the accused appellant was waiting for him with venom concealed inside and struck forceful lathi blow on his head. After the assault, the injured was taken by the witnesses to the hut and was found dead there. Leaving the dead body in the care of Sahdeo PW 2 and Ram Pratap PW 3, Ram Prahlad PW 1 had gone on foot to the house of Jawahar where he told about the incident to his father, whereafter he came to Gausadan. From Gausadan, Govarpal PW 4 had gone to police station to lodge the report. He got scribed the F. I. R. by one Siddiqui in Nichlaul at a tea shop and on being read over he had thumb-marked it. The Investigating Officer Vinod Kumar Yadav PW 7 was present at the police station at the time of the lodging of the F. I. R. and he proceeded to the spot with copy of the F. I. R. and Chik with police personnel to find the dead body of Jawahar in campus of Gausadan under a thatch. Inquest report was prepared by him and other formalities were completed whereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem through Home Guard Nandlal PW 5. All the witnesses withstood the test of cross-examination firmly. There was no enmity between them and the accused appellant. There is no ground whatsoever to discredit their testimony. 9. Fourthly, the oral and medical evidence completely reconcile. A lacerated wound on left parietal region above left ear was found on the person of the deceased. As per the witnesses, a single lathi blow was struck by the accused appellant on the deceased on his head. There was fracture of bone beneath the injury. Dr. 9. Fourthly, the oral and medical evidence completely reconcile. A lacerated wound on left parietal region above left ear was found on the person of the deceased. As per the witnesses, a single lathi blow was struck by the accused appellant on the deceased on his head. There was fracture of bone beneath the injury. Dr. S. N. Singh Chauhan PW 6 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the injury found on the person of the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further opined that it was caused by blunt object, i. e. , lathi and that the death could have taken place on 14-10-1979 at about 8 A. M. The fracture of parietal bone beneath the injury is eloquent of the fact that the blow was struck with sufficient force. The seat chosen for striking lathi blow was head-vital part. It, therefore, admits of no doubt that the accused appellant while striking the forceful lathi blow on the head (vital part) of the deceased intended to cause his death and he did so without any justification. 10. It is well explained as to how small and large intestine of the deceased were loaded with faecal matter. The incident took place at about 8 A. M. The testimony of Govarpal PW 4 (father of the deceased) is that his son had come from Nichlaul in the morning and soon thereafter had left for Gausadan to discharge duty in his place. He, therefore, had no opportunity to ease himself. To come to the point, the medical evidence supports the prosecution story and ocular version on all the four corners. 11. On carefully examining the prosecution evidence on record, we subscribe to the view taken by the learned trial Judge that the accused appellant committed the murder of Jawahar, a young boy aged about 22 years on the given date, time and place without any justification whatsoever. It was out and out murder. He himself also was about 22 years of age as recorded in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 10-8-1981. Considering his age, the lesser of the two alternative punishments, i. e. , life imprisonment has been awarded to him by the learned trial Judge. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and we accordingly dismiss it. P. C. on 10-8-1981. Considering his age, the lesser of the two alternative punishments, i. e. , life imprisonment has been awarded to him by the learned trial Judge. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and we accordingly dismiss it. The appellant is on bail. He shall be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence passed against him by the trial Court. 13. The office shall send a copy of this judgment along with record to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months. Appeal dismissed. .