Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 140 (RAJ)

Rampal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-17

GOVIND MATHUR, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara by judgment dated 12.11.2005 recorded conviction of the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In event of default in payment of fine the appellant was further required to undergo two months additional imprisonment. The question validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment aforesaid this appeal is preferred. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 9.9.2004 at about 01:10 PM Shri Nandlal (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Baneda Camp Moosi with assertion that on 8.9.2004 at about 05:00 PM he left his house to avail labour work at Mandal Choraha leaving his mother Smt. Sugna and maternal uncle Shri Madanlal Luhar behind at home. A telephonic information was received by him at about 11:30 PM that Rampal Lakhara was quareling with his mother. On reaching to home he came to know that at about 11:15 PM Rampal Lakhara gave a wooden stick blow on the head of Smt. Sugna, consequently she died. He further stated that Rampal was keeping vengeance with his mother as she objected his illicit relations with Smt. Shanti Luhar. 3. Acting upon the information received a case was lodged and necessary investigation was initiated. An autopsy on the person of deceased Smt. Sugna was made, report of which is available on record as Ex.P/7. As per Ex.P/7 the cause of death was head injury i.e. cerebral brain stem laceration. After necessary investigation a police report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the competent court charging Rampal and Shanti for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The court after hearing counsel for the parties framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused persons denied the charges and desired to have complete trial. 4. During the course of trial the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 22 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-22) and several documents prepared during the course of investigation. An opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse circumstances existing in prosecution evidence. The accused in general termed the entire evidence as false and concocted. 5. 4. During the course of trial the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 22 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-22) and several documents prepared during the course of investigation. An opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse circumstances existing in prosecution evidence. The accused in general termed the entire evidence as false and concocted. 5. Learned trial court after hearing counsel for the parties and examining the entire evidence acquitted Smt. Shanti but recorded conviction against accused appellant Rampal. 6. In appeal, the only argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that even by accepting the prosecution case as it is, the case against the accused appellant does not run beyond an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code. It is asserted that as per the statement of eye witness Shri Madanlal Luhar there was neither any premeditation nor any intention to kill Smt. Sugna. The person of deceased Smt. Sugna had as a matter of fact a single injury only, though in the postmortem report Ex.P/7 two injuries are referred. The injury No. 2, as per learned counsel is only extension and consequence of injury No. 1. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor while defending the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial court stated that at the instance of accused appellant a wooden stick having a width of 5" was recovered by which head injury was caused to Smt. Sugna. Giving injury by such a deadly weapon on a vital part of a person is sufficient to establish that the accused was intending to cause death. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. As per postmortem report Ex.P/7 the person of Smt. Sugna was having following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 2" x ½" x skull deep behind the upper part of left ear. 2. Lacerated wound 1½" x ½" x skull deep over left occipita parietal region. 10. The postmortem report Ex.P/7 was prepared by a board of doctors including Dr. Manakchand Jain (PW-3) and Dr. Anshu Kapoor (PW-4). As per the medical evidence the injuries aforesaid were sufficient to cause death in normal course of life. In view of the evidence aforesaid there is no doubt about homicidal death of Smt. Sugna. 11. From perusal of the statements given by PW-12 Shri Madan Luhar the author of the injuries aforesaid is accused appellant Rampal. Anshu Kapoor (PW-4). As per the medical evidence the injuries aforesaid were sufficient to cause death in normal course of life. In view of the evidence aforesaid there is no doubt about homicidal death of Smt. Sugna. 11. From perusal of the statements given by PW-12 Shri Madan Luhar the author of the injuries aforesaid is accused appellant Rampal. He in quite unambiguous terms stated that in night at about 11:00 PM his sister Smt. Sugna went out for urination and after some time he heard a scream made by her. On coming out, he found that Rampal was indulged in some fight with her sister Sugna and then he gave a wooden stick blow on parietal region consequent to which Sugna fell down. Rampal was accompanied by Smt. Shanti. Rampal and Shanti then fled from the spot. Suffice to mention here that during the course of investigation a wooden stick was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant, recovery of memo of which is available on record as Ex.P/8. The wooden stick was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur for its serological examination. The stick was found stained with blood stains of "AB" group, the blood group of deceased Smt. Sugna. In view of the definite statement made by Madan Luhar and recovery of blood stained wooden stick, we are having no doubt about involvement of the accused appellant in the crime in question. 12. The only issue survives for consideration is that whether the accused appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code or of any other offence. 13. From examination of the statements made by PW-12 Madan Luhar it reveals that he and his sister deceased Smt. Sugna were sleeping in their house. In night at about 11:00 PM Smt. Sugna went out for urination. After some time Madan heard a scream made by Smt. Sugna and on coming out he saw Rampal giving a wooden stick blow on parietal region to Smt. Sugna. No evidence is available on record to suggest that the accused came at the spot of occurrence to kill Smt. Sugna, but on the contrary it is evident that Smt. Sugna proceeded out from her house for urination. The accused along with Smt. Shanti was present at the place of occurrence of crime. No evidence is available on record to suggest that the accused came at the spot of occurrence to kill Smt. Sugna, but on the contrary it is evident that Smt. Sugna proceeded out from her house for urination. The accused along with Smt. Shanti was present at the place of occurrence of crime. Some doubts about illicit relationship of Rampal and Smt. Shanti were also in existence. As per the prosecution evidence, deceased Smt. Sugna was objecting the relation aforesaid. Looking to these circumstances it is quite possible that Smt. Sugna on coming out from house would have saw Rampal in company of Smt. Shanti and that resulted into a quarrel and during the course of quarrel wooden stick blow would have been given by accused Rampal to Smt. Sugna. This apprehension is further fortified on examination of medical evidence. According to postmortem report (Ex.P/7) the person of Smt. Sugna was having two injuries, however, the injuries suffered are quite close to each other and those can very well occur even by giving a single wooden stick blow. Pertinent to mention here that no evidence is available on record to establish any intention of accused Rampal for killing Smt. Sugna. No evidence is available about any premeditation for committing the crime in question. Whatever evidence available that indicates the sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. However, looking to the structure of the wooden stick recovered at the instance of accused, it cannot be denied that he must be having a knowledge that any blow given by that may cause bodily injury that may result into death. As such, the offence committed by the accused appellant does not travel beyond an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I Indian Penal Code. 14. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the view that the trial court erred while recording conviction of the accused appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused appellant recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused appellant recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is set aside. The sentence awarded by the trial court is also set aside and the accused appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of which the accused appellant shall be liable to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.Appeal partly allowed. *******