Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1394 (RAJ)

Nanda @ Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-28

B.PRASAD, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2006
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-Convict appellant Nanda @ Nand Lal has been sentenced under Section 302, IPC to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara (“the trial Court” hereinafter) by Judgment dated 210.2002 in Sessions Case No. 205/2001. Hence this appeal. 2. The prosecution brought up case for challan against the appellant that he has murdered his wife Modi in the room of their house and, thereafter, latching up the door of the room from outside the appellant ran away. To this effect, the first information report was lodged by Amba Lal, PW. 1 on 08.08.2001 at 12.50 P.M. at Police Station, Mandal alleging that since quite some time past Nanda and his wife Modi had strained relations and on many occasions Nanda belaboured her. At about 9 A.M. that day, he (Amba Lal, PW. 1) and some of the persons of the neighbourhood had tried to reconcile them; but, thereafter, it was alleged in the FIR, Nanda beat hard his wife Modi, murdered her and latching up the door from outside the room made good his escape. Amba Lal, PW. 1 author of the FIR, stated that the corpse of Modi is lying in the room of her house. 3. At the trial, the State examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. Among the State witnesses, Amba Lal, PW. 1 is cousin of the convict Nanda, Devi, PW. 8 is father of deceased Modi, Ladi, PW. 9 is sister and Prem Lal, PW. 10 is brother-in-law of the convict. Dr. Narendra Sharma, PW. 13 conducted autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased on 08.08.2001 itself at 4.30 P.M. Khan Mohammad, PW. 16 is the investigating officer. Rest of the witnesses are motbir and neighbourhood witnesses. The defence examined Pappulal, DW-1. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned Judgment . We have also carefully gone through the record and statements of the witnesses. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code by the trial Judge the accused denied the charge and the allegations levelled against him and pleaded not guilty. 6. Ambalal, PW. 1, though author of the FIR, turned hostile at the trial. We have also carefully gone through the record and statements of the witnesses. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code by the trial Judge the accused denied the charge and the allegations levelled against him and pleaded not guilty. 6. Ambalal, PW. 1, though author of the FIR, turned hostile at the trial. A perusal of his statement recorded by the Court reveals that he deliberately tried to conceal the truth but he admits having put his signatures on Exh. P/1, Exh. P/3, Exh. P/4, Exh. P/5 and Ex. P/6. Bheru, PW. 2 stated to have got written portion A to B of Ex. P/8, his statement recorded by the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. PW. 3 Hajari is uncle of the convict, and was declared hostile by the prosecution at the trial. Similarly, PW. 4 Anwar Hussain and PW. 5 Chand Mohammed turned hostile and denied the prosecution version. Another hostile witness is PW. 6 Kanhaiyalal who deposed in his cross-examination that the accused rented the house of his brother Shambhoo and then stated that he did not know the accused. 7. From the statements of these hostile witnesses, it is abundantly clear that none of them is ignorant of the factual matrix of the case. They have certainly tried to sheathe up the guilt of the accused but admit at the same time having been party to the investigation proceedings. 8. PW. 8 Devi is the father of deceased Smt. Modi. It is relevant to probe the veracity of the statement of this witness who has deposed in his cross-examination that the village people informed him that Nand and his sister and brother-in-law killed his daughter Modi. He also suggested that Nand had relations with some other woman. Devkaran, PW. 11 is an independent witness who has stated in his cross-examination that he had talked about shouting of Nanda’s wife at the floor-mill of Rameshwar and also admitted having heard about the accused killing his wife Modi. Another neighbourhood witness is Khaman, PW. 12 who admitted before the Court that portion A to B of Exhibit P/17 is correct and true. Heeralal, PW. Another neighbourhood witness is Khaman, PW. 12 who admitted before the Court that portion A to B of Exhibit P/17 is correct and true. Heeralal, PW. 18 had admitted in his statement that in the night preceding the day of occurrence the accused had beaten up his wife Modi and Modi had come to his house and, therefore, he had gone to the house of the accused to soothe down tempers. The witness further stated that accused told him in the night that just then there had been quarrel and as such (he should) send Modi in the morning. 9. Without attaching preponderance, we have also carefully gone through the statement of the investigating officer Khan Mohammed, PW. 16. The witness stated that there had been earlier investigation against the accused at the instance of the deceased in which proceedings challan had been presented in the Court and the Court after holding him guilty had given him benefit of probation. 10. It must be borne in mind that there is no eye-witness to the offence alleged against the accused. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence coming up on the record. Therefore, the conclusions drawn in the impugned Judgment are absolutely based on the circumstantial evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution. The prosecution has fairly established the recoveries and the F.S.L. report is also not disputed before us. However, it is only the convict Nanda and none else who committed the murder of deceased Modi is the precise conclusion that must be reached before we hold the accused guilty and maintain the impugned Judgment . 11. We have noticed in the statements of the witnesses that none of the witnesses has denied their signatures given on various documents at the time of the investigation and even the hostile witnesses Bheru, PW. 2 and Khaman, PW. 12 admitted before the Court their police statements. It has come on record indisputably that the accused was at his house in the night preceding the day of occurrence and Heeralal, PW. 18 had gone to his house to soothe down the quarrel between accused and his wife Modi upon Modi coming to his house. Heeralal has deposed that accused told him to send Modi in the morning as just then the quarrel had taken place. After murder of Modi the accused was found having run away. 18 had gone to his house to soothe down the quarrel between accused and his wife Modi upon Modi coming to his house. Heeralal has deposed that accused told him to send Modi in the morning as just then the quarrel had taken place. After murder of Modi the accused was found having run away. This is certainly an incriminating circumstance against the accused. The accused is said to have been arrested a day later. 12. Thereafter, recoveries have been effected which alongwith F.S.L. report singularly point to the guilt of the accused. The F.S.L. report dated 31.08.2001 is Exh. P/36. In the said report, identical human blood has been found on the clothes of the deceased as well as bushirt of the accused and upon “gatiya” fachari used in commission of the crime. There is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of the “gatiya (fachari)” and bushirt of the accused at the instance of the accused. Since the recovery is not under suspicion we cannot but accept the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which corroborates the prosecution case that none else but the accused committed murder of his wife deceased Modi. 13. We do not find any suggestion from the statements of the witnesses that crime could have been committed by any one else than the accused. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the bare argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that when almost all the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile the appellant must not be convicted and sentenced has little worth when the conduct of the appellant himself leads us to believe the case of the prosecution inasmuch as there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the motive for the crime. Testimony of PW . 12 Heeralal proves the motive and it has also come on record that the accused had already developed ties with some other woman. Nothing has come on record to doubt the veracity of the F.S.L. report which confirms the blood on the clothes of the accused being the blood of the deceased. The same is as true with regard to the blood stained “gatiya” recovered at the instance of the convict-appellant. Nothing has come on record to doubt the veracity of the F.S.L. report which confirms the blood on the clothes of the accused being the blood of the deceased. The same is as true with regard to the blood stained “gatiya” recovered at the instance of the convict-appellant. The recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused seen with the recovery of wood “gatiya” used in the crime sufficiently proves the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover, this is case of custodial death and the guilt of the appellant is more proved by his own conduct rather than circumstances wherefrom inferative suggestions could only be drawn. 14. In the result, we do not find any force in the present appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed.