Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 780 (RAJ)

Munir @ Munna Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-18

GOVIND MATHUR, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2005 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, who found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his wife, namely, Jafarunnisha. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to suffer six months imprisonment. 2. The appellant was married with Jafarunnisha 19 years before the occurrence. As per the complainant Rasheed Ahmed (P.W.7), deceased was her younger sister. She after marriage was residing in ancestral house with children. The appellant and the deceased were blessed with two sons and one daughter. The appellant was plying tempo at Udaipur. He used to visit deceased after 4/6 months. The deceased often used to complain as to how she would be able to look after the children and run the household for want of necessary funds provided by the appellant. On the date of occurrence, deceased was sitting at the house of Aasama, when her son Asif came to call her and stated that the accused is having knife in his hand. Upon receiving the information, deceased, sister of the complainant, left the house and proceeded towards the house. It is stated that when the deceased reached on the upper floor of the house, the present appellant with an intention to kill her gave various knife blows, which caused injuries on the back, neck and fingers. Due to the injuries, blood started oozing out and on raising of the alarm by the sister, Siraj Bhai, Godh Mohammed were attracted to the spot and the accused decamped from the spot along with the weapon. The above facts were stated in the complaint, Ex.P/10, made by Rasheed Ahmed (P.W.7) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ghantaghar, Udaipur. 3. On receipt of the above information, case was registered for the offence under Section 307, 324 IPC. Later the investigating agency had converted the offence into under Section 302 IPC upon receipt of the information regarding death of the deceased. Upon registration of the above said FIR, investigation proceeded. A charge-sheet was filed with the opinion of the investigating officer that the accused had committed offence of murder. Later the investigating agency had converted the offence into under Section 302 IPC upon receipt of the information regarding death of the deceased. Upon registration of the above said FIR, investigation proceeded. A charge-sheet was filed with the opinion of the investigating officer that the accused had committed offence of murder. The charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was entrusted to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur for trial. 4. The trial court on 25.11.2004 charged the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The first charge stated that on 13.08.2004 at 05.30 p.m., the appellant had murdered his wife Mrs. Jafarunnisha with an incised weapon knife and hence, committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Furthermore, for the recovery of knife from an auto-rickshaw in possession of the appellant, he was charged for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act also. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses. The entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of Asif Mohammed (P.W.11), son of the appellant and the deceased. This witness at the time of his deposition in the court was 14 years old. Since the entire case revolves around the testimony of this witness, this court has to determine whether the testimony of child witness aspire confidence or not and whether the witness has been tutored or not. The court has been put to a task to ascertain whether the witness has been prompted to testify against the appellant or not. Witness Asif Mohammed (P.W.11) was subjected to various questions by the trial court before recording satisfaction that the witness is competent to depose. The witness has specifically stated in the court that six months before his appearance in the court, he was sleeping in the house at Mahawatwadi, when his father came and instructed him to call the mother. The witness went to the house of Aasama Begam to call his mother. When he returned with his mother, the appellant caused various knife blows to the deceased mother of the witness. This witness has stated that knife blows were given on the neck and stomach. The witness ran away to the house of maternal grandmother to call his elder brother Farooq. When he returned with his mother, the appellant caused various knife blows to the deceased mother of the witness. This witness has stated that knife blows were given on the neck and stomach. The witness ran away to the house of maternal grandmother to call his elder brother Farooq. Thereafter he narrated the occurrence to maternal uncle Rasheed Ahmed (P.W.7), who lodged the FIR. This witness stated that since the father was not handing over money to the mother for meeting the domestic expenses, there used to remain differences between the father and mother. This witness further stated that father had given 29 knife blows to the mother. This witness further stated that Siraj Mohammed and Ghosh Mohammed were attracted to the spot. The witness was subjected to searching cross-examination. The witness withstood the test for trial court to come to the conclusion that he is a reliable witness. 6. The testimony of this witness is further corroborated by Naseer Mohammed (P.W.8) and Noor Mohammed (P.W.9), who stated that Asif came running and disclosed that father has killed the mother by causing knife blows. They reached to the place of occurrence, where Jafarunnisha, deceased, was lying in a pool of blood. At that time, they also witnessed the accused running from the spot along with a knife, i.e. the weapon of offence. 7. The prosecution has also examined Dr. Kishan Dhanak (P.W.15), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 14.08.2004 to say that about 29 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 8. In the light of above clinching evidence, we have heard counsel for the parties. 9. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the testimony of P.W.11 Asif Mohammed, P.W.8 Naseer Mohammed and P.W.9 Noor Mohammed to urge that due to contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the statements of the witnesses, their evidence is liable to be brushed aside. However, during the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant failed to substantiate the discrepancies or contradictions, of which we ought to take notice. What was stated by P.W.11 Asif Mohammed to P.W.8 Naseer Mohammed and P.W.9 Noor Mohammed is admissible in evidence because of res gestae. Immediately after the occurrence, Asif Mohammed had gone to inform these witnesses that mother has been killed by father. What was stated by P.W.11 Asif Mohammed to P.W.8 Naseer Mohammed and P.W.9 Noor Mohammed is admissible in evidence because of res gestae. Immediately after the occurrence, Asif Mohammed had gone to inform these witnesses that mother has been killed by father. What is told by eye-witness to these two witnesses is qualified by unity of time, space and action. Furthermore, P.W.8 Naseer Mohammed and P.W.9 Noor Mohammed had seen the deceased decamping from the place of occurrence along with the weapon which was stained with blood. 10. It has also been conclusively proved by the prosecution by examining various witnesses that the accused was not providing sufficient funds for running the household to the deceased and this was the root cause of differences between the husband and wife. Furthermore, it has also come in evidence and proved by corroborative evidence that the deceased was called from the house of Aasama at the bidding of the appellant. Medical evidence also lend corroboration to the ocular version. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C , though not bound to give his version, had given no explanation as to how the deceased was found dead in matrimonial home. Holding that the testimony of P.W.11 Asif Mohammed, P.W.8 Naseer Mohammed and P.W.9 Noor Mohammed is trustworthy and sufficient to record the conviction of the appellant, we find that there is no scope to cause interference to disturb the well-reasoned finding of conviction returned by the court below.Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******