Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 379 (RAJ)

Bheru v. State of Rajasthan

2004-03-12

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed by the accused Bheru Gurjar against a judgment dated 25.5.2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. He has been ordered life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and six months simple imprisonment on account of non-payment of fine.The facts of the case are few and can be stated briefly. PW1 Ram Nath Gurjar who happens to be a brother of the appellant on 29.1.1999 at 9:15 a.m. reached at Police Station, Bijoliya and lodged an oral FIR (Exh.P/1). According to the report, two brothers Uda and Ram Nath were living separately and the youngest (appellant Bheru) was residing with the parents with his wife (deceased). On 29.1.1999, late in the morning the mother of the appellant informed PW-1 Ram Nath that the appellant was inside the room and is not coming out. Ram Nath knocked the gate and informed the appellant that the sun had arisen and why he is not coming out. The room was bolted from inside. The appellant then opened the gate and came out. When Ram Nath looked inside, there was blood in the room. Thereafter the appellant ran towards the chowk and shouted that his wife has died. Ram Nath caught hold of the appellant and made him to sit. Their mother went inside the room and found that the dead-body of the wife of the appellant Smt. Ramju was lying in a pool of blood with an injury on the head. Thereafter the appellant informed Ram Nath that he himself had killed his wife by inflicting injuries to her wtih the help of a 'kulharr. A case under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and ultimately the appellant was put to trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. The learned court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 25.5.2000. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the trial court. The learned court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 25.5.2000. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the trial court. We find that there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.So far as the question of cause of death is concerned, there is no dispute and PW-8 Dr. Akshay Saxena has deposed that he was the Chairman of the Medical Board, which performed the post-mortem on 29.1.1999. Smt. Ramju according to Dr. Saxena died on account of the single injury by a sharp-edged weapon which was found to be on the left lower ear, which went upto the centre of the occipital area obliquely. On opening of the temporal 25 region, it was found that there was fracture of the left temporal and occipital bones. Further the doctor has stated that the said injury was sufficient in *he ordinary course of nature to cause death.PW-1 Ram Nath is the brother and PW-5 Smt. Nandu is the mother of the appellant. Ram Nath has stated that the appellant was residing alongwith his wife with the parents and on the date of the incident, in the morning on the asking of his mother he knocked the gate of the room of the appellant and the appellant came out and told that his wife had died. According to the witness, the appellant was overpowered by him and his father and inside the room the blood-strained dead-body of Smt. Ramjuwas lying. The witness has stated that when he went to the room of the appellant, the room was bolted from inside and as soon as the appellant came out, the dead-body of Smt. Ramju was discovered in the room. He has further stated that he went to the Police Station and lodged the report (Exh.P/1).PW-5 Smt. Nandu is the mother. She was evasive in answering the questions and during her examination-in-chief, she was instructed by the court to answer the questions properly. He has further stated that he went to the Police Station and lodged the report (Exh.P/1).PW-5 Smt. Nandu is the mother. She was evasive in answering the questions and during her examination-in-chief, she was instructed by the court to answer the questions properly. Her deposition is to the effect that in the morning when the appellant and his wife did not came out of the room, she told them to come out and prepare tea etc., upon which the appellant as came out of the room and shouted as to what will happen to him now. According to the witness the appellant informed that his wife has died and the dead-body of Smt. Ramju was found in the house. She, however, denied that the dead-body was seen by her.PW-12 Sita Ram is the father of the deceased, who has stated that after so receiving the information regarding the incident, he went to the house of the appellant and found that the dead-body of his daughter Ramju was lying in the house. He further stated that the appellant was sitting nearby in the custody of the police and the brother and mother of the appellant were also present.PW-14 Ramesh Chandra, SHO, PS. Bijoliya nas stated to the effect that a case was registered by him on the oral FIR by Rarn Nath and then during the investigation the 'kulhari' was recovered by him at the instance of the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the story of recovery of 'kulhari' has not been believed by the trial court and the father of the appellant has not been examined inspite of the fact that in the deposition of PW-1 Ram Nath it has come that the father of the deceased was present in to the house. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that during the deposition of PW-1 Ram Nath, he has not corroborated the contents of the FIR to the effect that the appellant made extra-judicial confession to the effect that the injuries to the deceased were inflicted by 'kulhari'. 2. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and we find that they are of no consequence to the accused. 2. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and we find that they are of no consequence to the accused. It may be noted that PW-1 Ram Nath is the brother of the accused and there is no reason on the basis of which it could be inferred that he was interested in falsely implicating his own brother. True the deposition of Ram Nath does not say that a mention of 'kulhari' was made by the appellant during the extra-judicial confession. However, the witness has specifically stated that the accused admitted and stated that he himself killed his wife. Non-examination of the father of the accused in the circumstances of this case cannot be attached with much importance. It is true that the learned trial court has not believed the story of recovery of the 'kulhari' but in the facts and circumstances of this 25 case, the recovery or non-recovery of the weapon is not of much consequence in view of the fact that there is acceptable evidence to the effect that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant. It is not in dispute that both slept in the room during the night. In the morning the room was not opened still late. The mother became worried and 30 summoned Ram Nath, who knocked the gate and found that the room was bolted from inside. As soon as the room was opened, Ram Nath found that the dead-body of Smt. Ramju was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter the appellant made an extra-judicial confession to the effect that he had murdered his wife. There is no circumstance to disbelieve the prosecutionstory in this respect. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that possibly the deceased during the night accidentally fell on the 'kulharr and received the injuries in question. 3. We have noted the nature of the injury and are of the view that the injury in question cannot be received in the circumstance suggested by the learned defence counsel nor the Medical Officer PW-8 Dr. Akshay Saxena was suggested that the injury in question could come in the aforesaid manner. The only suggestion made to Dr. Saxena was to the effect that was it possible to receive the injury in question in the eventuality of the injured colliding with door of the room, to which Dr. Akshay Saxena was suggested that the injury in question could come in the aforesaid manner. The only suggestion made to Dr. Saxena was to the effect that was it possible to receive the injury in question in the eventuality of the injured colliding with door of the room, to which Dr. Saxena replied in the negative. The injury was inflicted with such a force that the single injury was sufficient to cause death. From this, it is more than evident that the sole motive with which the injury was inflicted was the murder of Smt. Ramju.Consequently, we find no merit in these appeals and both the appeals hereby dismissedAppeal Dismissed. *******