Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 382 (UTT)

RAJENDRA SINGH @ RAJU v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2012-07-16

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 2. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No.210 of 1998, whereby the sole accused Rajendra Singh Rana @ Raju has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3. Brief facts of case are that an FIR was lodged on 09.10.1997 at 4 AM by one Manoj Singh, brother of the deceased Govind Singh, according to which, in the intervening night of 8/9.10.1997, the entire family, consisting of complainant, his wife Bina Devi, mother Parvati Devi and his younger brothers Pappu and Govind Singh (deceased) had gone to village Rajeev Nagar-I to watch ‘Ramlila’. Deceased Govind Singh had left ‘Ramlila’ much before the members of the family. When at about 1:30 AM or so, they reached their house, they found appellant/accused Rajendra Singh Rana running away from the house towards a hand pump in the vicinity, he was carrying a Patal (a sharp edged weapon). The accused could be identified in the light of torch which was being carried by PW1 Manoj Singh. When the complainant reached inside the house, he found his brother (Govind Singh) lying dead on the floor of the house, with incised wounds all over his body. In consequence of the information given to the police of this ghastly incident, the inquest began which was completed on 9.10.1997 at about 6 AM. The members of the inquest have observed as many as 11 injuries on the body of deceased. The post mortem was also conducted on the same day, i.e. on 9.10.1997 at about 1:30 PM. In the post mortem report, fifteen incised wounds and one abrasion have been located. Subsequently, in the deposition of PW7 Dr. Narendra Singh, who conducted the autopsy, it has come that all the incised wounds could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon such as ‘Patal’. Many of these incised wounds are on the head. The ante-mortem injuries, mentioned in the post mortem report, are as under: - 1. “Incised wound one 6 x 1 cm x bone deep, transversally over right side of frontal bone of scalp, 10 cm from right ear, margins clear cut well defined, edges everted. Many of these incised wounds are on the head. The ante-mortem injuries, mentioned in the post mortem report, are as under: - 1. “Incised wound one 6 x 1 cm x bone deep, transversally over right side of frontal bone of scalp, 10 cm from right ear, margins clear cut well defined, edges everted. 2. An incised wound 8 x 1 cm x scalp deep present over left side of forehead of head, 10 cm from left ear, wound placed vertically, sharp, well defined. 3. An incised wound over 3 x 2 cm x bone deep, present over left side of face, 2 cm from left lateral angle of mouth, placed transversely, on further exposure, muscles cut and cut fracture of left mandible. 4. An incised wound over 6 x 3 cm x muscle deep, present over left side of neck, adjacent to margin of left mandible, on exposure, muscles and great vessels cut. 5. An incised wound 3 x 2 cm x muscle deep, present over upper lateral part of right side of neck, adjacent to right ear, margins sharp, everted, placed transversely, on exposure, blood present. 6. An incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over right side chin, placed oblique. 7. An incised wound over front of neck, 3 x 1 cm x larynxial box deep, kept transversely, on exposure, larynx and pharynx, exposed a cut and haemorrhage on it. 8. Incised wound one over space of bronchea 1.5 x 1 cm, transversal cut with haemorrhage. 9. An incised wound over center of chest (sternum), 1 x .5 x muscle deep, on exposure, margins sharp, 7 cm from right nipple. 10. An incised wound 1.5 x .5 cm x muscle deep on left side of areola of nipple, sharp margins. 11. A transverse incised wound 4 x 2 cm x muscle deep, on the dorsum of right wrist joint, on exposure, ‘hge’ present, margins everted, sharp, clear cut. 12. An incised wound over back of middle of neck, 7 x 4 cm, margins sharp, clear cut, cut vertebrae and spinal cord seen, on exposure, the same damaged and ‘Hge’ present. 13. An incised wound 3 x 1 cm x scalp deep over posterior and anterior of scalp, margins clear cut and everted. 14. Abrasion one over right shoulder blade, 3 x 1 cm, bluish black, on exposure, blood clot present. 15. 13. An incised wound 3 x 1 cm x scalp deep over posterior and anterior of scalp, margins clear cut and everted. 14. Abrasion one over right shoulder blade, 3 x 1 cm, bluish black, on exposure, blood clot present. 15. An incised wound 14 x 4 cm x muscle deep over dorso-lateral part of arm left middle lower part, while on exposure, muscle cut, ‘Hge’ present, vertically placed. 16. An incised wound 9 x 4 cm x muscle deep, on exposure, muscles cut over dorsal part of right upper forearm, placed obliquely, margins of wound sharp, well defined. The cause of death, as opined by the medical officer, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.” 4. The accused was arrested on 11.10.1997, i.e. a day after the incident and on his pointing out, the weapon ‘Patal’ was recovered from the bushes near river ‘Gola’. After completion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused u/s 302 IPC. On 23.4.1998, learned Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Sessions. 5. Subsequently, the Sessions court framed charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as eight witnesses, out of them, PW1 Manoj and PW2 Pappu (brothers of deceased) and PW3 Smt. Parvati Devi, (mother of the deceased) have been examined. All these three witnesses, though have not seen the actual commission of crime or assault but they are the witnesses of fact to the effect that they saw the accused while leaving the house of deceased at about 1:30 in the night, armed with a ‘Patal’ in his hand. All these three witnesses were put to heavy cross examination by the defence and barring one or two minor contradictions in their statements, nothing has come out which may, in any manner, be of some benefit to the defence. The credibility of all these three witnesses is beyond any doubt. It is true that they have not seen the actual commission of crime but they are the witnesses to an important aspect, i.e. about the incident when the accused was coming out from the house after committing the alleged crime. The credibility of all these three witnesses is beyond any doubt. It is true that they have not seen the actual commission of crime but they are the witnesses to an important aspect, i.e. about the incident when the accused was coming out from the house after committing the alleged crime. At the relevant time, the accused was armed with a ‘Patal’ and he was identified by PW1, PW2 and PW3, whom they could identify in the light of Torch, being carried by PW1 Manoj Singh in his hand. There is nothing to disbelieve or discredit the evidence given by these three important witnesses. 7. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are the formal witness, such as Inspector or the Constable who have done investigation in the crime. PW7 Dr. Narendra Singh is an important witness, who, in his deposition, made on 27.4.2002, has corroborated the injuries which were mentioned in the post-mortem report, and he has opined the cause of death as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. He has further stated that in his opinion, these injuries could have been caused at about 1:30 AM on 9.10.1987 by a sharp edged weapon such as ‘Patal’. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eyewitness to the crime, inasmuch as, if PW1, PW2 and PW3 had seen the accused at about 1:30 AM in the night, they could not have identified the accused in such a dark night, even if assuming that one of them was carrying (PW1) a torch. This submission of the defence counsel is liable to be rejected for the following reasons: - A. Firstly, there is nothing unnatural on the part of PW1 Manoj Singh in carrying a torch, as he had gone along with his brother and old mother to watch ‘Ramilila’ and in any case, he had to return to his house in the late night. It is not a case of prosecution that each and every person in the party was carrying a torch, rather the torch has been shown only in the hand of PW1. Moreover, the accused is not a person unknown to the witnesses. It is not a case of prosecution that each and every person in the party was carrying a torch, rather the torch has been shown only in the hand of PW1. Moreover, the accused is not a person unknown to the witnesses. He was well known to the family and particularly to the deceased, since it has come in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that there was some dispute between the deceased and the accused Rajendra on the issue of payment of money between the two. Therefore, it is perfectly natural and plausible for all the three witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3) to have identified the accused, even though it was 1:30 in the night. B. Secondly, the nature of recovery of ‘Patal’ which has been made on 11.10.1997 on the pointing out of accused, clearly makes the same admissible in evidence, as all the ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act have been complied with. There is plausible evidence on record that the recovery was made on the pointing out of the accused. Besides, the three witnesses (PW1 Manoj Singh, PW2 Pappu and PW3 Smt. Parvati Devi) have identified the accused while running out from the house of deceased, right at the time when the deceased was killed. C. Thirdly, the prompt lodging of the FIR in the matter has not given any time to the complainant to have an after thought in the matter. 9. All the above narrated facts and circumstances clearly goes to show that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt against the accused/appellant to the hilt. 10. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the trial court is upheld. Accused is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let the records be remitted back to the trial court, along with a copy of this judgment, with the direction to ensure the custody of accused, so that he serves the sentence awarded against him.