Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 990 (BOM)

Indarjeetsingh v. State of Maharashtra

2014-04-16

K.U.CHANDIWAL, V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2009, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, is before this court by presenting this appeal. Ranjeetsingh Bhullar, along with his three sons - Manmohansingh (PW 2), Satvindarsingh (deceased), Indarjeetsingh (present appellant) and a daughter namely Jasvindar Kaur (PW 5), at the relevant time was residing at Sindhi Colony, Nanded, in a rented house. 2. Manmohansingh lodged a report with police station Vajirabad, Nanded. The said report is at Exh. 10. It was reported by Manmohansingh to the police authorities that in the intervening night between 27.1.2009 and 28.1.2009, he, along with his sister Jasvindar Kaur and brother Satvindersingh were sleeping in one room; whereas the appellant Indarjeetsingh was sleeping in another room. In the morning of 28.1.2009, at about 6.30 a.m., appellant Indarjeetsingh gave a blow of pickaxe/hoe dwnky on the head of Satvindersingh. With this basic facts, the complaint (Exh. 10) was lodged. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the present appellant. Injured Satvindersingh was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nanded and was given treatment. Throughout he was unconscious. During treatment, on the very same day, Satvindersingh died. On getting the information of his death, the offence under Section 307 was converted into an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After registration of the crime, the police station officer K.M. Shaikh handed over the investigation of the crime to Vishwambhar Suryawanshi (PW 8). After the investigation was over, the charge sheet was filed in the court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nanded framed charge against the appellant. The trial was conducted against the appellant, since he abjured his guilt. 4. We have heard learned advocate Shri S.S. Londhe, appointed for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri P.N. Mule for the respondent/State. 5. The prosecution examined Manmohansingh (PW 2), his sister Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5), father Ranjeetsingh (PW 4), Panch Puransingh Sapure (PW 3), Dr. The trial was conducted against the appellant, since he abjured his guilt. 4. We have heard learned advocate Shri S.S. Londhe, appointed for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri P.N. Mule for the respondent/State. 5. The prosecution examined Manmohansingh (PW 2), his sister Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5), father Ranjeetsingh (PW 4), Panch Puransingh Sapure (PW 3), Dr. Shubhangi Karadkhedkar (PW 1), Pankaj Gawande (PW 6) and also the investigating officer Vishwambhar Suryawanshi (PW 8). 6. The first informant Manmohansingh (PW 2), who gave oral report to the police station, has proved his report. The investigating officer Vishwambhar Suryawanshi (PW 8), being entrusted with the investigation of the crime, went to the spot of the incident. The spot was shown by the first informant. From the spot, articles were seized including clothes. 7. Dr. Shubhangi (PW 1), who was attached to the Civil Hospital, Nanded, conducted postmortem on the dead body of Satvindersingh. She found following injuries on his person. "(1) Wound stitched on temporo frontal region left 17 cm 1 ong. (2) CLW on left occipital area 2cm x 1 cm x 3cm long breadth depth. (3) Depressed fracture of underlying bone Fracture of temporo parietal bone left 14 cm long." According to the doctor, the injuries found on the person of deceased can occur, if the assault is by iron pickaxe/hoe dwnky . She proved postmortem notes. Those are at Exh. 8. The opinion as to the cause of death was given by Dr. Shubhangi (PW 1) as, Head injury with Fracture-Skull. From the afore said injury, it is clear that the deceased died homicidal death. 8. Manmohansingh (PW 2), the brother of the appellant and the deceased has supported the case of the prosecution. If his evidence is scrutinized minutely, then it is clear that in the night between 27.1.2009 and 28.1.2009, appellant Indarjeetsingh was sleeping in the separate room; while he, along with brother Satvindersingh and sister Jasvinder Kaur was sleeping in another room. On 28.1.2009, he heard screams of Satvindersingh, due to which he got up to notice that appellant was holding pickaxe/hoe dwnky in his hand. Appellant ran away from the spot after bolting the door from outside. With efforts, Manmohansingh could open the door. Manmohansingh noticed that Satvindersingh was lying in the injured condition. Therefore, he called labourers and Satvindersingh was reached to the hospital in a rickshaw. 9. Appellant ran away from the spot after bolting the door from outside. With efforts, Manmohansingh could open the door. Manmohansingh noticed that Satvindersingh was lying in the injured condition. Therefore, he called labourers and Satvindersingh was reached to the hospital in a rickshaw. 9. His evidence would further reveal that the appellant, who is a vagabond, was asked by father Ranjeetsingh to do some work and earn for family. On this, appellant assaulted father Ranjeetsingh. At that time, at the said assault Satvindersingh (deceased) came there and he gave 2-3 slaps to the appellant. Due to the said slaps, the appellant was offended. 10. Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5), sister of Satvindersingh (deceased) has also corroborated the earlier incident of assault by appellant to father Ranjeetsingh and giving 2-3 slaps by deceased to the appellant. Jasvinder Kaur also deposed before the court that on 28.1.2009, she found appellant near Satvindersingh (deceased) along with pickaxe/hoe dwnky and then running away from the spot. 11. Thus, the evidence of Manmohansingh (PW 2) and Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5) corroborates each other on the vital aspect of earlier assault on their father by the appellant and the anger shown by the deceased for such assault on the father by giving slaps to the appellant. 12. No doubt true, neither Manmohansingh (PW 2) nor Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5) deposed before the court that they have actually seen giving pickaxe/hoe dwnky blow on the head of the deceased. This fact clearly lends assurance to the prosecution story. This clearly shows that these two witnesses are not giving any exaggerated version of the incident. In lengthy cross-examination of these two witnesses, there is nothing on record to suggest that their testimonies are impeached. In fact, from cross-examination of Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5), it emerges as follows:- "It is not true that at the time of incident Inderjeetsingh was not present in the house. We caught him while he was giving second blow of Tikas to Satvindersingh." 13. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the motive for the murderous assault on Satvindersingh. Appellant s immediate presence in the morning of 28.1.2009 along with the weapon near Satvindersingh is an incriminating circumstance against the present appellant. 14. We caught him while he was giving second blow of Tikas to Satvindersingh." 13. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the motive for the murderous assault on Satvindersingh. Appellant s immediate presence in the morning of 28.1.2009 along with the weapon near Satvindersingh is an incriminating circumstance against the present appellant. 14. The learned trial court, after weighing the pros and cons of the prosecution case and after scrutinizing the evidence on record minutely, in our view, has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged. 15. There is no reason for Manmohansingh (PW 2) or Jasvinder Kaur (PW 5), who are respectively brother and sister of the appellant, to depose against him. Their evidence clinchingly proves the charge against the appellant. 16. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the present appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 17. Shri Shashikant S. Londhe, advocate was appointed for the appellant from Legal Aid. We quantify his fee at Rs. 5,000/-. Appeal dismissed.