Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1919 (RAJ)

Mancharam v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-27

B.PRASAD, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal has been filed by accused Mancharam, against his conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 341, IPC and sentenced as detailed below, as awarded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 20/1999 dated 012.2000:- Offence Sentence Under Section 302, IPC -Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default one years imprisonment. Under Section 341, IPC -Three months simple imprisonment. 2. On 30.01.1999, complainant Annaram, lodged a written report at Police Station, Nanna. In the report it was alleged that Chhogaram, younger brother of the complainant was a student in the school at Khetreli. While he was returning from the school alongwith his colleagues Suresh Kumar and Gangaram he was confronted by Mancharam, when they reached at his house and there he was assaulted by Mancharam. The colleagues of his brother came to his home and informed that his brother Chhogaram is lying dead at the scene of occurrence. His one of the hands has been amputed. On this report, the police lodged the first information report and started investigation. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and ultimately the case came up for trial to the trial Court. 3. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 341 and 302, IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, the trial Court examined 14 witnesses and produced 14 documents in evidence. In defence two documents were exhibited. The accused was examined under Section 313, CrPC. He has denied his implication and has stated that he has an unstable mind and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. On the day of the incident, he had about of madness. 4. At the trial, PW. 3 Ganesh has been examined as an eye-witness, who has stated that while he, Suresh and Chhogaram were coming from school, accused Mancharam inflicated injuries to the deceased by sword and he died due to those injuries. Similarly, PW. 2 Jetharam who was accompanying the deceased from School has stated that while they reached near the house of Mancharam, accused inflicted injuries by sword to the deceased and the deceased died. PW. 8 Tararam is also an eye-witness. He has stated in his statement that on the day of the incident, three school children, including the deceased, were coming from the school. At that time he was working in his field which is nearby. PW. 8 Tararam is also an eye-witness. He has stated in his statement that on the day of the incident, three school children, including the deceased, were coming from the school. At that time he was working in his field which is nearby. At that time, accused came out of his house and inflicated injuries on the deceased. He saw the assault and then went on the scene where he saw that the accused had gone inside his house and the deceased with injuries was lying on the scene of occurrence. He in his cross-examination has stated that while he arrived at the scene of occurrence, the accused had gone into his house. When he arrived, the other witnesses had left the scene of occurrence. 5. The trial Court, after examining the testimony of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses, came to the conclusion that it is a case where the eye-witnesses have deposed in favour of the prosecution story and the prosecution story is trustworthy and, therefore, the accused appellant has been convicted of the offences as aforesaid. The trial Court, also considered the case about the mental state of the accused. It has been found by the trial Court that there was no traces of any mental illness available and from that background, the case of the accused is not liable to be brought into the exceptions contained in the Indian Penal Code. The accused had no sustainable defence and, therefore, the prosecution story was believed. 6. The learned amicus-curiae, appearing for the accused, urged that the two witnesses who have been produced as eye-witnesses are not the eye-witnesses, namely PW. 3 Ganesh and PW. 4 Suresh. The trial Court has made no effort to ascertain their competence as eye-witnesses and unless a child eye-witness is judged to be a competent eye-witness, his statement should not be given any credence. The learned amicus curiae further urged that PW. 6 Heera was not present on the scene of occurrence. He is a neighbour. He says that he heard the cries and then came to the scene of occurrence, which does not appear to be a probable situation. In that background it does not stand to reason that his statement should be given any credence. 6 Heera was not present on the scene of occurrence. He is a neighbour. He says that he heard the cries and then came to the scene of occurrence, which does not appear to be a probable situation. In that background it does not stand to reason that his statement should be given any credence. The learned amicus curiae further urged that there was no motive and whatever motive has come on record is too insignificant to bring home the offence and, therefore, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable. It has further been urged that it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have seen the occurrence. There is no other evidence to corroborate the prosecution case. And, therefore, the case cannot be sustained. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that this is a case which is amply proved because it was an assault made by the accused and seen by the companions of the deceased who were returning from school. Their presence is enough and, therefore, the case is amply proved as regards the witnesses who have been examined as eye-witnesses, namely PW. 3 Ganesh and PW. 4 Suresh. If their testimony is right then it can be safely concluded that they have deposed with competence and their testimony before the Court by itself is a guarantee of the fact that they were competent witnesses. If the Court has not formally recorded about their competency then it cannot be said that the manner and the statement both confirm that they were witnesses of worth and on that score the trial Court has considered it appropriate to convict accused appellant and no fault can be found on this count. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the record. 9. The assertion of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused that competency of the witnesses should be judged if the witness is a child eye-witness is a correct proposition of law. There cannot be any denial of this fact. But the trial Court has recorded the statement of PW. 3 Ganesh and PW. 4 Suresh. While recording the statement if it had not recorded the formal satisfaction that they are competent witnesses then it cannot be said that such illegibility has been committed so as to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses altogether. But the trial Court has recorded the statement of PW. 3 Ganesh and PW. 4 Suresh. While recording the statement if it had not recorded the formal satisfaction that they are competent witnesses then it cannot be said that such illegibility has been committed so as to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses altogether. If we read the statement given by these witnesses it reveals that the witnesses had sufficient competence to depose about the fact which they had seen themselves. And if the trial Court has placed reliance on them and their testimony appears to be of natural nature then this Court in appeal would not take a hyper-technical view, more particularly when their testimony has been corroborated by the testimony of the other eye-witness. 10. PW. 8 Tararam who lives nearby states what the other two eye-witnesses have stated in their statement. The testimony of the eye-witnesses is, thus, corroborated. The presence of motive then loses significance. The probable situation regarding motive is always a little fluid because motive is supposed to lie hidden in the mind of the accused himself . It is not naturally known whether the reason given is the correct reason or not. Therefore, it is not always necessary to insist upon a motive being deposed. Thus, absence of the motive would not go such a long way to discard the prosecution story. In view of the intrinsic worth of the eye-witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the accused appellant and we feel that the testimony of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy and there is nothing to infer that their testimony cannot be availed to the help of the prosecution. 11. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused relied upon a case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Assam vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed, 1983 SCC (Cri.) 325. The law, as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court about the child witnesses, is clear and unambiguous. The tutoring is not found in this case and, therefore, the case relied upon by the learned Counsel is of no consequence, more particularly when the identity of the accused was doubtful in the case relied and that being not the position in the facts of the present case, the case relied would not govern the facts of this case. 12. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 12. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence, as awarded by the trial Court, is maintained.