Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 728 (HP)

Narain Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-06-05

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Appellant-convict Narain Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 4.12.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Narain Singh, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 22.6.2007 at about 11 pm, Dhian Singh (deceased) came to the house of accused in a drunken condition. At that time, Sumitra Devi (PW-1), wife of the accused and her mother-in-law were present. Deceased started abusing them. After some time, accused came and started beating the deceased. Thereafter, he tied the deceased with a rope and took him inside the room, where again he gave severe beatings, as a result of which he (deceased) died. Death took place sometime on 23.6.2007. Following day, i.e. 24.6.2007, Sumitra (PW-1) reported the matter to Khem Raj (PW-2), Pradhan of the area, who alongwith one Desh Raj and others arrived at the spot. Accordingly, Pradhan informed the police. Police officials from Police Station Tissa arrived on the spot and recorded statement (Ex. PW-2/A) of the Pradhan, under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was sent to the Police Station for recording of FIR, through HC Charan Singh (PW-7), on the basis of which FIR No. 63/07, dated 24.6.2007 (Ex. PW-7/A), under the provisions of Sections 302 and 102 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Tissa, against the accused. On the spot, police conducted the investigation. Inquest report was prepared; dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Dipesh (PW-4), who issued postmortem report (Ex. PW-4/B), after receiving report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Police arrested the accused, who in the presence of Netar Singh (PW-3) made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-2/C), which led to the recovery of rope (Ex. P-3) and sticks (wooden logs) (Ex. PW-1 and P-2), vide Memo (Ex. PW-2/D). Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged rime. Hence, challan was presented in Court for trial. 3. Police arrested the accused, who in the presence of Netar Singh (PW-3) made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-2/C), which led to the recovery of rope (Ex. P-3) and sticks (wooden logs) (Ex. PW-1 and P-2), vide Memo (Ex. PW-2/D). Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged rime. Hence, challan was presented in Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and statement of accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: "I was not having good relations with my wife. She oftenly refused to obey my advice and left the matrimonial home as and when she desired. I have been falsly implicated in this case at the instance of my wife, who sued to threaten me to implicate in some false case whenever I visited my in-laws in order to bring her back." No evidence in defence was led. 5. Based on testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused, has made the following submissions, in the alternative: (i) prosecution has failed to establish complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) at best accused can be said to have committed an offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code; hence, appeal needs to be allowed. 7. Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court, convicting the accused. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal. Prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, in relation to the charged offence, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. Testimony of witnesses, fully inspiring in confidence, is unblemished, apart from being corroborative in nature. Prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, in relation to the charged offence, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. Testimony of witnesses, fully inspiring in confidence, is unblemished, apart from being corroborative in nature. Intent of the accused in committing murder stands established on record. 9. We are dealing with a case where accused murdered his own uncle in the presence of his wife. According to the accused, deceased was hurling abuses on his wife and mother. It is argued that this perhaps was the cause of provocation, but then assault and action is directly disproportionate to such alleged provocation. Wife of the accused herself is an eye-witness to the occurrence of incident. Also, there is un-rebutted testimony in the shape of an independent eye-witness. Strained relationship with his wife would have not evoked such response from the accused. 10. We find that accused has not led any evidence in defence. His defence that he was not having good relations with his wife, though denied by her, is not borne out from record. We find the defence not to have been probablized at all. In fact, in our considered view, accused has taken a false defence. He wants the Court to believe that his wife had left the matrimonial home. Now, he has not explained the distance between the matrimonial house and the parental home, where allegedly his wife was staying. This gains significance, in view of uncontroverted testimony of Sumitra Devi (PW-1) and Khem Raj (PW-2), proving their presence on the spot of crime and the suggestion of the accused that it was his wife who killed the deceased. 11. Before we deal with their testimonies, we shall first examine the cause of death. Dr. Dipesh (PW-4), conducted the postmortem of dead body of Dhian Singh (aged 40 years) and issued postmortem report (Ex.PW-4/B). Evidently, from the said report, it is clear that alcohol was found in the body of the deceased. However, doctor has categorically opined that injuries were found all over the body of the deceased and there was fracture of the occipital bone. According to the doctor, deceased died on account of serious injuries, internal and external, on the vital centres of brain, leading to shock and death. 12. Thus, it cannot be said that deceased died after consuming alcohol. According to the doctor, deceased died on account of serious injuries, internal and external, on the vital centres of brain, leading to shock and death. 12. Thus, it cannot be said that deceased died after consuming alcohol. Significantly, even the doctor does not state such fact. 13. Sumitra Devi (PW-1) categorically states that Dhian Singh (deceased) came to her house, in a drunken condition, in the night of 22.6.2007. At that time, her mother-in-law was also present. Deceased abused them. Thereafter, her husband, i.e. the accused came and started giving beatings to Dhian Singh with a stick. He took the deceased to his room. Accused asked his mother to give a rope, which she brought. Thereafter, accused tied the deceased and gave beatings with a stick (wooden log). Next day, her mother-in-law informed her that Dhian Singh had died but asked her not to disclose the incident to anyone. However, the following day, i.e. 23.6.2007, she reported the matter to the village Pradhan. From her testimony, it is clear that deceased was her father-in-laws brother. Though she admits that deceased was a drunkard, but denies that he sustained injuries on account of his having consumed alcohol. We find testimony of this witness to be absolutely inspiring in confidence. She has deposed quite naturally and in a truthful manner. She had no reason to falsely implicate her husband who murdered his own uncle. Now, this version of hers stands materially corroborated by Netar (PW-3), who though was declared hostile, but in his uncontroverted testimony admits that accused had given beatings to the deceased. On this point, there is no cross-examination by the accused. It appears that accused is not sure of the defences he wants to take. On one hand, he wants the Court to believe that his wife, having left his company and house, was staying separately, but on the other hand it stands suggested to PW-1 that it was she and her mother-in-law, i.e. mother of the accused, who had given beatings to the deceased, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. 14. We find that PW-1 and PW-3, eye-witnesses, in no uncertain terms, beyond reasonable doubt, have proved the prosecution case, with regard to guilt of the accused, of having murdered the deceased by giving blows with sticks/ wooden logs, on vital parts of the body. 15. 14. We find that PW-1 and PW-3, eye-witnesses, in no uncertain terms, beyond reasonable doubt, have proved the prosecution case, with regard to guilt of the accused, of having murdered the deceased by giving blows with sticks/ wooden logs, on vital parts of the body. 15. Khem Raj (PW-2), Pradhan of the area, has fully corroborated the testimony of PW-1. Accused, in his presence, made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW-2/C) and also got recovered the weapons of offence. 16. We do not find that there was any provocation on the part of deceased to have evoked such an action or reaction on the part of accused. If accused and his wife were having strained relations, then where was the question of accused having assaulted the deceased, who allegedly was abusing his wife and his mother? 17. It is not the case of accused that deceased, in a state of drunkenness, had either assaulted him or his family members. Accused could have locked the deceased inside the room. In fact, he did take him inside. But did not let the matter rest there. Significantly, he gave beatings to the deceased even inside and that too after tying him with a rope. Once when accused had tied the deceased with a rope, there was no question of his having assaulted the deceased again and that too with a log, and on the vital parts of the body. Thus, intent of the accused in committing the crime, for which he stands charged for, becomes abundantly clear. Accused without sudden and grave provocation assaulted the deceased mercilessly. 18. Hence, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. Appeal dismissed.