Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 279 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-01

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The prosecution has rested its case on the testimony of the three eye-witnesses PW. 1 Kan Singh, PW. 6 Badami Devi and PW. 8 Santosh. All the three eye-witnesses have come with a positive case that the accused Surma Devi caught hold of the deceased and accused Dharmendra inflicted injuries by a knife. The trial Court after considering evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that none of the three witnesses have spoken anything which would dilute the allegations made by them against the accused persons. They are the witnesses of truth and have spoken about the participation of both the accused persons. 3. The leaned Amicus Curiae arguing the case before us and submitted that accused Surma Devi is a lady of age of 50 years and the deceased was a young man of 23 years. It would be preposterous to accept that a lady of 50 years would keep a young man of 23 years in such confinement that would facilitate infliction of injuries by the accused Dharmendra. Therefore, the prosecution case suffers from inherent improbability wherein, the prosecution assigns an act of utter improbability that she caught hold of the deceased, while the order accused inflicted injuries. In that view of the matter, learned Amicus Curiae urged that the participation of the accused Surma Devi is highly doubtful proposition. The deceased has sustained four incised wounds, all in front part and this would make a proposition wherein, he was held from back. There were no scuffle marks on the person of the deceased. In a situation where the person is suffering threat of life and multiple knife wounds are being inflicted, he would try his level best to get out of the clutches of one who wants to inflict such injuries so as to cause death. That being the position, learned Amicus Curiae emphasises that it is a case where holding of the deceased by Surma Devi cannot be conclusively established to the extent of attributing her a common intention by which it can be said that she wanted to facilitate accused Dharmendra in getting such injuries inflicted which would result into death and a case covered under Section 302 read with 34, IPC cannot be held to be made out against the accused Surma Devi. 4. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae further emphasised that presence of broken bangles and "Mangalsutra" on the scene of occurrence shows that there was some scuffle between the lady and the deceased but that would not extend to the extent of attributing her a knowledge of intention which can be conclusively established to result into a positive participation wherein, she can be attributed active role in the actual assault. Learned Amicus Curiae further urged that when injuries are inflicted on vulnerable parts, holding of body of the deceased is not a proposition which can easily be digested because then there is always a danger of falling of injury on the person holding as well. She being lady would not have risked such a propostion. In absence of scuffle marks, on the person of the deceased, participation of Surma Devi cannot be said to be a rational proposition. As regards, the case of Dharmendra Singh is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that participation of Dharmendra Singh cannot be said to the extent which would attribute him the offence of Section 302 IPC. The eye-witnesses are not present from the beginning of the story. They came when shouts were heard by them Þekjs js] ekjs jsAÞ Therefore, it cannot be said that eye-witnesses were the witnesses of occurrence right from the beginning. They have arrived subsequent to the initiation of conflict. There are only four injuries and the time which can be taken to inflict four blows cannot be stated to be such to provide an opportunity to the eye-witnesses so as to make their case one where they have had the opportunity to see every part of the prosecution case. So much so that there are only four injuries and the first information has spoken about 5-6 blows. That negatives the case of the prosecution witnesses wherein he claims that he was the eye-witness. Leaned Amicus Curiae further urged that the prosecution has come out with a case that there was some previous enmity between the parties involving some land dispute and there was a strong motive of the accused persons to settle the course with deceased Panna Singh and in this back ground, learned Counsel emphasis that the dispute regarding the land cannot go to the extent of inflicting injuries when none of the parties were on the field. The occurrence has taken place at the house and there was no immediate reason for the accused to have assaulted Panna Singh. The prosecution has not come up with a true reason as to why the incident had occurred on the spur of the moment as alleged. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Counsel for the complainant submitted that the eye-witnesses are truthful eye-witnesses. They have given a graphic description of the event and has deposed about both the accused persons. The dispute regarding land was there and motive is not always available to be described when someone takes the extraordinary step of causing injury to the extent of elimination of mortal, The participation of Surma Devi has been deposed by all the witnesses and there is no reason not to accept it. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, nothing has been elicited by the defence which would fortify the defence version, so much so that the suggestions made to the witnesses knock out the plausibility of the defence as the prosecution case has been made out strongly. The injuries on the person of the deceased in front show that the hands of the deceased were held from behind by accused. The stroy of prosecution get corroborated from the circumstantial evidence also. The knife recovered at the instance of Dharmendra Singh has been found to be stained with blood and the blood group of the deceased was in conformity with the blood group on the knife, Thus, circumstantial evidence also established the guilt of Dharmendra Singh. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the record. We will first deal with holding of the deceased by the accused Surma Devi. Surma Devi is a lady of 50 years. If she held the hands of deceased from behind as claimed by the prosecution then, it was perhaps not possible for the assault making accused to have inflicted injury with precision on the part of the body where most vulnerable organs are situated. In fact, this stands to reason that when a man is facing death, he would certainly make all attempts to get out of the confinement. In fact, this stands to reason that when a man is facing death, he would certainly make all attempts to get out of the confinement. A lady of 50 years would hardly be expected to keep in confinement a young man so as to facilitate the other accused to inflict injuries with precision on left side of the chest. This only speaks of some aberation by the prosecution witnesses. According to the prosecution witnesses, they arrived after having heard the cries. Þekjs js] ekjs jsAÞ meaning thereby that initial blows had already been dealt with by the time the witnesses arrived because none of the witnesses have spoken as to how fight started. The beginning of the story of prosecution lacks in that department. When the initiation of fight has not been properly described by the prosecution witnesses, then it cannot be said that witnesses were in a position to watch the first assault when made. They have only heard the cries Þekjs js] ekjs jsAÞ and then proceeded to arrived. Therefore, it becomes doubtful that they had seen the holding of hands by the accused. According to their version, the deceased had tried to case himself from the clutches of the lady but there are no marks of scuffle injuries present on the person of the deceased. Naturally, if there was a forcibly confinement, scuffle injuries are expected to be there. They being absent, the factum of holding cannot be conclusively held so as to bring the case of Surma Devi within the definition of Section 302 read with 30 (sic) IPC. That makes us to feel that Surma Devi is entitled to benefit of doubt. As regards the case of Dharmendra Singh is concerned, he has been observed holding the knife and indulging into inflicting injuries. All the witnesses are unanimous on the point and their testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination. The trial Court has believed the testimony of eye-witnesses qua his participation regarding infliction of injury. The version of prosecution as given in the statement of PW . 8 Santosh Devi explains as to why the case against Surma Devi cannot be believed because according to her, Panna Singh had fallen down and all the injuries were inflicted after deceased had fallen down. The manner of occurrence fits into this part of testimony of PW . 7 Santosh Devi. 8 Santosh Devi explains as to why the case against Surma Devi cannot be believed because according to her, Panna Singh had fallen down and all the injuries were inflicted after deceased had fallen down. The manner of occurrence fits into this part of testimony of PW . 7 Santosh Devi. Thus, participation of Dharmendra Singh being established, we do not think he deserves any consideration and his case is not liable to be considered for acceptance of appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal of accused Surma Devi is accepted and appeal of accused Dharmendra Singh is rejected. Surma Devi is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled. Accused Dharmendra Singh is in jail. He should serve out the sentence as awarded to him.