Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 972 (HP)

DEEPAK CHHATRI v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-11-05

SURINDER SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.(Oral)-Appellant Deepak Chhatri has appealed against the judgment, dated 29.12.2005, of learned Sessions Court, Kullu, whereby he has been convicted of offence, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years. 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellant, may be stated. PW-1 Ram Nath is a resident of village Naingahar in Lahaul area of Lahaul Spiti District. He has about 7-8 bighas of land in village Godang, on which he grows potatoes and peas. In June, 2004, PW-2 Rajeev, a son of PW-1 Ram Nath, brought a Gurkha labourer, named Raj Kumar (deceased) from Dobhi near Manali, to help him in cultivating his land. In the month of June, farmers in Lahaul area are awfully busy with their farm-work as the cultivation of crops is possible in that area only from May to September/October. PW-1 Ram Nath needed additional help for sowing peas and potatoes. On 28th June, 2004, he approached PW-3 Ramesh Vishi to provide two labourers on the next following day. PW-3 Ramesh Vishi deputed appellant Deepak Chhatri and one Tilak to work on the land of PW-1 Ram Nath in village Godang. PW-1 Ram Nath took the said two labourers and deceased Raj Kumar to his fields in village Godang. Deceased Raj Kumar was required to pull the plough like a bullock and appellant was asked to handle the plough like a farmer. When the two were ploughing the land, they happened to quarrel with each other, because the appellant called Raj Kumar a bull. PW-3 Ram Nath intervened and pacified them. At 2 p.m., the appellant, his co-labourer Tilak, PW-1 Ram Nath and deceased Raj Kumar took their meals. After taking the meals, the appellant disappeared. Tilak was deputed to search for him. The latter returned after some time and informed that he could not locate the appellant anywhere near the fields. 3. At 5.30 p.m. Tilak, a co-labourer of the appellant, was allowed to go by PW-1 Ram Nath. After some time, PW-1 Ram Nath and deceased Raj Kumar also proceeded towards the residence of the former. Raj Kumar was carrying a bundle of grass, which he had tied by means of a rope. 3. At 5.30 p.m. Tilak, a co-labourer of the appellant, was allowed to go by PW-1 Ram Nath. After some time, PW-1 Ram Nath and deceased Raj Kumar also proceeded towards the residence of the former. Raj Kumar was carrying a bundle of grass, which he had tied by means of a rope. When they reached near village Gowali, PW-1 Ram Nath was walking about 50 metres ahead of deceased Raj Kumar. PW-1 Ram Nath heard the cries “Maro-Maro”. Upon that he looked back and saw the appellant and one Sajan giving beatings to Raj Kumar. He went running to the point where the deceased was being beaten up. He saw the appellant wielding Danda Ext. P7 and hitting the deceased with the same. He also saw appellant’s accomplice Sajan giving kick and fist blows to the deceased. Raj Kumar was lying unconscious and motionless. PW-1 Ram Nath then went to village Chogzing from where he made a call about the incident to his son PW-2 Rajeev, who was then employed as a teacher in Government Primary School, Chokang. PW-2 Rajeev, in turn, made a call at Police Post, Jahlma, which was attended by PW-6 HHC Devi Singh. An entry was made by him in the Rojnamcha, copy of which is Ext. PW6/A. 4. After giving a call to his son, PW-1 Ram Nath returned to the spot. He did not find Raj Kumar or his dead body there. He looked around by means of a torch and noticed dragging marks. By that time he had been joined by PW-3 Ramesh Vishi, who had made available the appellant and Tilak, as labourers, to PW-1 Ram Nath. Tilak also joined PW-1 Ram Nath alongwith PW-3 Ramesh Vishi. They searched for Raj Kumar. They spotted dragging marks and followed the same. At a distance of about 30 metres from the point where the deceased had been beaten up, dead body of the deceased was found. Neck of the body was tied by a rope that had been used for bundling the grass, which the deceased was carrying from the fields to the house of PW-1 Ram Nath. 5. In the meanwhile, PW-4 ASI Sita Ram accompanied by HC Devi Singh, Constable Ramesh Chand, Home Guard Nawang Dorje and HC Kewal Ram proceeded to the spot by a private vehicle. 5. In the meanwhile, PW-4 ASI Sita Ram accompanied by HC Devi Singh, Constable Ramesh Chand, Home Guard Nawang Dorje and HC Kewal Ram proceeded to the spot by a private vehicle. When they reached a point from where the path bifurcates for the spot, PW-1 Ram Nath met them and took them to the spot. Inquest was conducted by PW-14 ASI Sita Ram and Form Ext. PW1/F was filled in. Dead body was sent to District Hospital, Keylong for postmortem examination. PW-5 Dr. Pradeep Kumar conducted the postmortem. He noticed the following external antimortem injuries:- “1. 8cm long deep laceration, exposing underlying skull bone placed horizontally over upper part of occipital region of the scalp. 2. A 4 cm long deep lacerated wound obliquely placed over right side of the occipital region on the scalp. 3. A 4 cm deep lacerated wound obliquely placed over left parietal region of the scalp. A 4 cm deep lacerated wound horizontally placed over left supraorbital region. 4. A 2.5 cm deep lacerated wound vertically placed over left supraorbital region. Fracture of the nasal bone. 5. A 5x4 cm contusion over the vertex of the head with indistinct margins. 6. A 4 x 4 cm contusion, bluish read on neck below left ear with ill defined margins. 7. A small 1.5 cm lacerated wound over right supraorbital region. 8. A small 1 cm lacerated wound on dorsum of right thumb.” 6. The doctor gave the opinion that cause of death was head injury, resulting in contusion, haemorrhages, laceration of brain tissue and intracranial haemorrhage, which all caused shock. 7. From the spot a Danda Ext. P7 was also recovered by the police, which bore stains of blood at one end. Blood was also scrapped from a stone, embedded in the earth at the spot. The Danda, the blood collected from the stone and the clothes of the deceased were sent to Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ext. PW9/B, reported that blood stains on one end of the Danda as also the blood collected from the stone and the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased were of human blood of Group ‘B’. 8. Police searched for the appellant and his accomplice Sajan, but could not locate them in the valley. Finally the appellant was arrested from his native place in Kaling Pong District of West Bengal, on 18.11.2004. 8. Police searched for the appellant and his accomplice Sajan, but could not locate them in the valley. Finally the appellant was arrested from his native place in Kaling Pong District of West Bengal, on 18.11.2004. His accomplice Sajan has not been located so far. He has been declared Proclaimed Offender by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 9. Police filed report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Appellant was charged with offence, under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Court. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was, therefore, tried. 10. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Ram Nath, his son PW-2 Rajeev, PW3 Ramesh Vishi, labour supplier, PW-4 Ramesh Sahi, PW-5 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, who conducted postmortem examination and PW-14 ASI Sita Ram, who investigated the case, to bring the charge home to the appellant. 11. Appellant denied that he had been deputed as a labourer to work for PW-1 Ram Nath on the relevant date or that he had had a quarrel with the deceased, while working in the fields of PW-1 Ram Nath. He denied having killed the deceased. 12. Learned trial Court believed the prosecution version, as testified by PW-1 and corroborated by PW-2 Rajeev, PW-3 Ramesh Vishi and PW-4 Ramesh Sahi and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the report. 14. PW-1 Ram Nath, while in the witness box, stated that deceased Raj Kumar had been brought as a servant to help him in his agricultural pursuits by his son PW-2 Rajeev from Manali area of Kullu District, on 20th June, 2004. He testified that on 29th June, 2004, two labourers, namely Deepak Chhatri (appellant) and one Tilak had been provided to him by PW-3 Ramesh Vishi on his request and that he took these two labourers and deceased Raj Kumar to his fields in village Godang and there the appellant and deceased Raj Kumar were required to plough the land. He testified that on 29th June, 2004, two labourers, namely Deepak Chhatri (appellant) and one Tilak had been provided to him by PW-3 Ramesh Vishi on his request and that he took these two labourers and deceased Raj Kumar to his fields in village Godang and there the appellant and deceased Raj Kumar were required to plough the land. He stated that the deceased pulled the plough like a bullock while the appellant handled it like a farmer and that when doing the job, they happened to enter into an altercation, when the appellant called the deceased a bullock. He stated that he intervened and pacified them. Further, he testified that they all took their meals in the fields and thereafter the appellant disappeared and could not be located. He stated that in the evening around 5.30, Tilak, the other labourer, was allowed to go and thereafter he and the deceased left the fields. He stated that he walked ahead of the deceased, while the deceased, who was carrying a load of grass made into a bundle, followed him. He stated that when they reached village Gowali and the distance between them was about 50 mertres, he heard someone crying “Maro-Maro” and when he turned back, he saw the appellant and Proclaimed Offender Sajan giving beating to the deceased. He stated that the appellant was wielding Danda Ext. P7 and was hitting the deceased with the same while Sajan was giving fist and kick blows to the deceased. He further stated that he went to village Chogzing from where he made a telephonic call, from the house of one Prem Jeet, to his son PW-2 Rajeev to inform the police that the deceased had been beaten up by the appellant and his accomplice Sajan, a Proclaimed Offender, and himself returned to the spot and on the way PW-3 Ramesh Vishi, the labour supplier, and Tilak, the other labourer, who had been deputed that day, met him sitting on a culvert and they all went to the spot, but the deceased or his dead body was not there. He further stated that all of them searched for the deceased, who was lying dead at a distance of about 30 yards. The witness further deposed that after some time police reached the spot and he made statement Ext. PW1/A to them. 15. Testimony of PW-1 Ram Nath is corroborated by statement Ext. He further stated that all of them searched for the deceased, who was lying dead at a distance of about 30 yards. The witness further deposed that after some time police reached the spot and he made statement Ext. PW1/A to them. 15. Testimony of PW-1 Ram Nath is corroborated by statement Ext. PW1/A, in material particulars. It is also supported by the testimony of PW-2 Rajeev, his son, PW-3 Ramesh Vishi and PW-4 Ramesh Sahi. 16. PW-2 Rajeev testified that he received a telephonic call from his father on the evening of 29th June, 2004 to the effect that Raj Kumar, their servant, had been beaten up by the appellant and his accomplice Sajan and that it appeared that Raj Kumar had died as a result of that beating. He stated that he informed the police telephonically. Statement of this witness is corroborated by the entry in the Rojnamcha, copy Ext. PW6/A, as also by the testimony of PW-6 HHC Devi Singh of Police Post, Jahlma. 17. PW-3 Ramesh Vishi testified that on the asking of PW-1 Ram Nath he had supplied two labourers, one of whom was appellant Deepak Chhatri, and the other was Tilak, on the fateful day. He also stated that in the evening, when he and Tilak were sitting on a culvert, PW-1 Ram Nath met them and told that appellant Deepak Chhatri and his accomplice Sajan had beaten up Raj Kumar. He also stated that he and Tilak accompanied PW-1 Ram Nath to the spot and on reaching the spot they saw some dragging marks and following those marks they reached a point in the bushes and saw the dead body of Raj Kumar, with a rope tightened around its neck. 18. PW-14 ASI Sita Ram, who reached the spot around 9.30 p.m., testified that he recorded the statement Ext. PW1/A of PW-1 Ram Nath on the spot after he was led to the spot by him (PW1 Ram Nath), along a path from the road-head where he reached by a private vehicle. He stated that he conducted inquest, got the scene photographed and recovered Danda Ext. P-7, which was lying near the spot. 19. Appellant denies that he was present in the fields of PW-1 Ram Nath on 29th June, 2004 or was deputed by PW-3 Ramesh Vishi alongwith Tilak to work in his fields. He stated that he conducted inquest, got the scene photographed and recovered Danda Ext. P-7, which was lying near the spot. 19. Appellant denies that he was present in the fields of PW-1 Ram Nath on 29th June, 2004 or was deputed by PW-3 Ramesh Vishi alongwith Tilak to work in his fields. Statement of PW-3 Ramesh Vishi proves the fact of the appellant having been deputed to work as a labourer for PW1 Ram Nath on that day. Statement of PW-4 Ramesh Sahi also proves the fact that the appellant and Tilak had worked as labourers in the fields of PW-1 Ram Nath on the relevant date. The witness stated that he himself, appellant Deepak Chhatri, Tilak and Sajan, a Proclaimed Offender, used to work as labourers in the area and PW-3 Ramesh Vishi was their Mate. He also stated that on 29th June, 2004, appellant Deepak and Tilak were deputed to work with PW-1 Ram Nath and at 2.15 p.m. appellant Deepak Chhatri had met him when he was going towards his quarters and on his asking that he was supposed to be working in the fields of PW-1 Ram Nath, he (the appellant) told that he was not feeling well and was going to quarters to take rest. He further stated that when he returned to the quarters, where he used to reside alongwith the appellant, Tilak and Sajan, he found that appellant Deepak and Sajan were not there. 20. Denial of the appellant that he alongwith Tilak worked as labourer in the fields of PW-1 Ram Nath, on 29th June, 2004, is relevant as his conduct and this is a circumstance, which corroborates the prosecution version, as testified by PW-1 Ram Nath. Sudden disappearance of the appellant and his accomplice Sajan, a Proclaimed Offender, immediately after the commission of the crime, is also relevant as their conduct. This conduct of theirs further corroborates the ocular version of the incident testified by PW-1 Ram Nath. 21. Also, we find nothing on record suggesting that PW-3 Ramesh Vishi and PW-4 Ramesh Sahi, both of whom belong to the community of the appellant, all of them being Gurkhas, have any motive to make false statements against the appellant. This conduct of theirs further corroborates the ocular version of the incident testified by PW-1 Ram Nath. 21. Also, we find nothing on record suggesting that PW-3 Ramesh Vishi and PW-4 Ramesh Sahi, both of whom belong to the community of the appellant, all of them being Gurkhas, have any motive to make false statements against the appellant. Further, there does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 Ram Nath, which is corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of PW-3 Ramesh Vishi and PW-4 Ramesh Sahi. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that conduct of PW-1 Ram Nath in not informing the police directly and instead informing his son PW-2 Rajeev indicates that he himself might have killed the deceased and that is why he did not inform the police, himself. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. No question was put to PW-1 Ram Nath in the cross-examination as to why he adopted this course. May be that he would have given very convincing explanation for not informing the police directly. One of the explanations, which immediately comes to our mind, could have been that since the deceased had been brought as a servant by his son PW-2 Rajeev, PW-1 Ram Nath thought it proper to inform his son first about the incident. 23. In view of the above stated position, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant for offence, under Section 302 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, is well founded. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.