Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 397 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-06

SHASHI KANT SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–Instant criminal appeal has been filed by accused appellant Omprakash against the judgment dated 4.7.2001 passed by Add. Sessions Judge, Chhabra District Baran whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and was sentenced for the imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine in default to further suffer imprisonment of three months RI. (2). The brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under: (3). PW-8 Balmukand lodged a written report Ex.P. 19 on 3.7.99 at 8.15 p.m. to SHO Police Station, Atru wherein it was mentioned that his uncle Om Prakash came to his house with his wife Dhapubai. On 3.7.99, his uncle Om Prakash was in his room and Balmukund and his mother were working out side the room in a Chouk. Dhapubai was also sitting with them. His uncle accused Om Prakash asked his wife to come inside the room, his aunt Dhapubai went there where accused Om Prakash caused her injuries by knife. they tried to rescue her. Neighbours Chandra Bahadur and Chouthmal also came there. All of them tarried to save Dhapubai. Dhapubai became faint. She was shifted to hospital where she died after 15 minutes. Her aunt received injuries on abdomen, both eyes and breasts. On this report police registered a case for the offence under section 302 IPC and started investigation. Investigating Officer reached the spot and prepared site plan. Autopsy was conducted on the body of deceased Dhapubai. Accused Om Prakash was arrested. Pants of accused was also seized by the police. Police also recovered knife on the information and at the instance of the accused After completion of investigation, challan has been filed against accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC before the concerned Magistrate where from the case has been committed to Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhabra. After hearing charge argument, charge for the offence under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused appellant. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses Namely Kalulal PW-1, Jamanbai PW-2, Bhuvnesh Sharma PW-3, Choathmal PW-4, Mohan Lal PW-5, Chandra Bhahdur PW- 6, Dr. N.D. Irani PW-7, Balmukand PW-8, Sunita PW-9, Kailashbai PW-10, Hukma Chandra PW-11, Badrilal PW-12, Radheshyam Patel PW- 13, Rajesh Kumar Kavat PW-14, Gopal Lal PW-15, Laxmi Chand Meena PW-16 and Mamtabai PW-17. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses Namely Kalulal PW-1, Jamanbai PW-2, Bhuvnesh Sharma PW-3, Choathmal PW-4, Mohan Lal PW-5, Chandra Bhahdur PW- 6, Dr. N.D. Irani PW-7, Balmukand PW-8, Sunita PW-9, Kailashbai PW-10, Hukma Chandra PW-11, Badrilal PW-12, Radheshyam Patel PW- 13, Rajesh Kumar Kavat PW-14, Gopal Lal PW-15, Laxmi Chand Meena PW-16 and Mamtabai PW-17. Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.c. No defence witness was examined by him. AFter hearing arguments learned trial court convicted the accused appellant fro the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him as indicated herein above. (4). Smt. Sumati Bisnoi, Advocate, was appointed Amicus Curiae to defend the accused appellant. Arguments were heard. (5). Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that learned trial court has wrongly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. I is also conceded that it may be a case of accidental death. It is contended that deceased Dhapubai might have fallen on knife and by that fall she might have received injuries. It is also contended that at the most accused may be convicted for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC because accused had no intention to kill his wife as kitchen knife has been used for inflicting injuries. (6). Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. It is also contended by him that accused has committed murder of his wife at the house of his brother. At the time of occurrence nephew of accused Balmukand, niece of the accused and sister in law (bhabhi) of the accused Kailash Bail were present in that house and all these witnesses are natural witnesses of this occurrence and all of them have been examined by the prosecution and all of them have supported the prosecution story. It is also contended that there is no reason before the court after all why these witnesses are falsely implicating the appellant for the murder of his wife. It is also contended that prosecution story is fully corroborated by the statement of PW-7 Dr. N.D. Irani and post-mortem report Ex.P. 18. It is also contended that neighbour chandra Bahadur has also supported the prosecution version. It is also contended that according to the statement of PW-7 Dr. It is also contended that prosecution story is fully corroborated by the statement of PW-7 Dr. N.D. Irani and post-mortem report Ex.P. 18. It is also contended that neighbour chandra Bahadur has also supported the prosecution version. It is also contended that according to the statement of PW-7 Dr. Irani and post-mortem report Ex.P. 18 deceased Dhapubai has received seven injuries. It is also contended that by fall Dhapubai could not receive these seven injuries. It is also contended that the question that deceased could receive these injuries by fall on a knife was not asked to Dr. Irani. (7). Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that accused has inflicted seven injuries on the person of deceased Dhapubai. these injuries were caused by knife a dangerous weapon. He has caused injuries on vital parts of the body. It is also contended that injuries caused by accused were dangerous and grievous in nature. It is contended that after looking to the number of injuries, looking to the weapon used, looking to the parts of the body chosen by the accused for inflicting the injuries, looking to the gravity of the injuries, it is clear that accused has intention to cause death of the deceased therefore accused has been rightly convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC. (8). We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have also gone through the entire evidence available on record. Deceased Dhapubai is wife of accused Om Prakash PW-8 Balmukund who was eye-witness of the occurrence and lodger of the report is nephew of the accused. PW-10 Kailash Bai who is also one of the eye-witness of this case is sister in law (bhabhi) of the accused. PW-9 Sunita who is also an eye-witness of the occurrence is niece of accused. According to prosecution story accused with his wife deceased Dhapubai came to the house of his brother PW-12 Badrilal. At the time of occurrence PW-8 Balmukund PW-9 Sunita, PW-10 Kailashbai were at the place of the occurrence. We have examined statements of these three witnesses. All these three witnesses are close relatives of the accused himself. We do not find any reason after all why these witnesses are falsely implicating accused Om Prakash. We have also examined their statements minutely, and found that their statements are wholly reliable. In this matter, written report to the police was submitted promptly i.e. within two hours. All these three witnesses are close relatives of the accused himself. We do not find any reason after all why these witnesses are falsely implicating accused Om Prakash. We have also examined their statements minutely, and found that their statements are wholly reliable. In this matter, written report to the police was submitted promptly i.e. within two hours. After reading statement of all the three witnesses it becomes clear that at the time of occurrence accused Om Prakash was in the room with his wife Dhapubai he inflicted seven injuries on the person of his wife with knife and entire occurrence was seen by all the three eye- witnesses. Statements of these witnesses are also corroborated by the statement of PW-6 Chandra Bahadur who is a neighbour. Prosecution story is also corroborated by the statement of PW-7 Dr. Irani and post-mortem report Ex.P. 18. AFter examining entire evidence available on record we come to the conclusion that prosecution has fully proved that accused Om Prakash has inflicted seven injuries on the person of his wife by knife. We have also considered the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae that in a scuffle deceased might have fallen on knife and have received these injuries. But looking to the number of injuries and site of injuries we are of the view that these injuries could not be caused by fall of deceased on a knife. (9). Now we are considering for what offence accused should be convicted for causing the death of his wife by inflicting injuries. For this purpose we should consider number of injuries, part of the body chosen by the accused for inflicting injuries and nature of the weapon used by him for causing such injuries and other circumstances of the case. In the present case, accused has caused as many as seven injuries. He has caused those injuries on the vital part of the body of the deceased. he has used knife for causing such injuries. We considered all the aspects of this case and we are of the view that trial court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC. After considering all the circumstances of the case we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. (10). For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal, the same stands dismissed. After considering all the circumstances of the case we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. (10). For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal, the same stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC are confirmed.