Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1705 (HP)

Tek Bahadur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-11-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 23.1.2015 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 7-S/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that the accused along with his family members i.e. Roopmati (his wife) and three children, was living in the ground floor of the house of Vinod Kumar son of Lok Pal Mokta. He was working in the orchard of Vinod Kumar. The accused used to give beatings to his wife under the influence of liquor and he also suspected her character. The complainant Vinod Kumar heard noise of weeping of children of accused. He came down from his house and saw that accused armed with darat was wandering in the courtyard proclaiming that he would cut all the family members. Smt. Roopmati (since deceased) was lying in the verandah. Kumari Shobha, minor daughter of accused aged about 13 years, was sitting by the side of Roopmati. She was weeping. The accused hit darat on the neck of his wife. Vinod Kumar took the danda and asked the accused to drop the darat. The accused dropped the darat. The accused was overpowered by Vinod Kumar with the help of his brother Manoj Mokta. The neighbour Aditya Parkash Mokta, Member Rajinder Singh and Pardeep Mokta were also called to the spot. Roopmati died on the spot due to the injury sustained by her. The police was informed. The police reached the spot and recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C vide Ext. PW-3/A, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered at PS Jubbal. The weapon of offence i.e. darat Ext. P-3 was taken into possession during investigation. The I.O. also prepared the rough sketch of the darat. Soil and sample soil were also lifted from the spot vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. The inquest reports Ext. PW-12/A and PW-12/B were prepared. PW-10/A was registered at PS Jubbal. The weapon of offence i.e. darat Ext. P-3 was taken into possession during investigation. The I.O. also prepared the rough sketch of the darat. Soil and sample soil were also lifted from the spot vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. The inquest reports Ext. PW-12/A and PW-12/B were prepared. Blood stained jacket worn by the accused at the time of the incident, was also taken into possession. Supplementary statements of Vinod Kumar, Kumari Shobha, Rajinder, Pardeep Manoj Kumar and Aditya Parkash were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested. The post mortem of the dead body was got conducted in Civil Hospital Jubbal. The post mortem report is Ext. PW- 1/C. The statement of Km. Shobha under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by JMIC (2), Rohru, as per Ext. PW-8/D. The identification of the spot was also carried out. The case property was taken into possession. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 23.1.2015. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Dr. Gagan Sharma has conducted the post mortem examination. According to him, the victim died due to hypovalemic shock following massive hemorrhage from wound site probably leading to cerebral hypoxia and cardio pulmonary arrest. The post mortem report is Ext. PW-1/C. 7. PW-2 Rajinder Singh deposed that he received telephonic call of Vinod Kumar at 11:45 PM. He was Ward Member of the Panchayat. He told him that the accused has committed murder of his wife. He went to the spot. At that time, Vinod Kumar, Aditya Parkash, Pardeep Kumar and Manoj Kumar were already present there. The accused was also present on the spot. He was Ward Member of the Panchayat. He told him that the accused has committed murder of his wife. He went to the spot. At that time, Vinod Kumar, Aditya Parkash, Pardeep Kumar and Manoj Kumar were already present there. The accused was also present on the spot. He saw the dead body lying outside the door of the room of the accused. The police had reached the spot. The police clicked the photographs. Blood stained soil was lifted from the spot and put in the “dibi” and sealed in a parcel. 8. PW-3 Vinod Kumar is the most material witness. According to him on 11.1.2013 at about 11:30 PM, he heard noise of weeping of children. He woke up and went towards the ground floor and saw accused moving alongwith the darat in his hand. His children were weeping. Accused was proclaiming that he would cut into pieces one and all. The wife of accused was lying dead near the wood cutter which was outside the room of the accused and children were found weeping. He asked the accused to throw the darat. He had danda in his hand. Accused tried to go inside and hit his wife in the throat with darat in his presence while she was dead. Thereafter, he hit the accused by danda and the accused threw the darat outside. He called neighbour and brother Manoj. They overpowered the accused. He informed the police. The police reached the spot after 30/45 minutes. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the hospital was at a distance of 1 km. and it takes about half an hour to reach the hospital. The Police Station was also at the same distance. He admitted that when he reached at the spot, Roopmati was lying dead near the wood cutter machine. Wood cutter machine belongs to him and its blade is having 12 inches radius. He reached the spot within 30 seconds from his room after hearing noise of weeping. He switched on the light of his room and verandah. He reached the spot. He did not touch the body of Roopmati but there was no movement. Firstly, he tried to ask accused to hand over the darat as there was danger to his life. No other villagers had engaged Nepali as labourer in their houses. He switched on the light of his room and verandah. He reached the spot. He did not touch the body of Roopmati but there was no movement. Firstly, he tried to ask accused to hand over the darat as there was danger to his life. No other villagers had engaged Nepali as labourer in their houses. In the room of the accused there was electricity but outside the room there was no electricity. First he called villagers and thereupon he called the police. His Uncle Parkash Mokta was the first person who reached the spot. 9. PW-4 Aditya Parkash has supported the version of PW-3 Vinod Kumar. He received the call on his mobile phone of Vinod Kumar at 11:30 PM. He reached the spot. Accused was working as servant with Vinod Kumar. He was residing in the ground floor of the house of Vinod Kumar along with his family. Vinod Kumar and Manoj Kumar had caught hold of the accused when he reached there. Pardeep Kumar also reached the spot. Rajinder Kumar, Ward Member came after some time. He saw Roopmati lying on the ground near to the door in injured condition as there was injury on her neck and blood was oozing out. She was dead. Vinod Kumar told him that accused has killed his wife by hitting darat. Thereafter, police was informed. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was wood cutter in the ground floor. Accused had not made any request to him to take his wife for medical treatment to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police. 10. PW-5 Pardeep Chand deposed that at 11:30 PM, he received telephonic call of Vinod Kumar who told him that accused has hit darat on the neck of his wife. He asked him to come to his residence. Vinod Kumar is his neighbour. Accused was his servant. He reached on the spot. On the spot Vinod Kumar also informed him that accused has killed his wife with darat. The darat was lying on the spot. The police was informed. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that accused has asked him to take his wife for treatment to hospital. He also denied that accused has put his jacket on the neck of Roopmati. 11. PW-8 Dhiru Thakur, JMIC, Jubbal has recorded the statement of Km. Shobha, daughter of accused (Tek Bahadur). The police was informed. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that accused has asked him to take his wife for treatment to hospital. He also denied that accused has put his jacket on the neck of Roopmati. 11. PW-8 Dhiru Thakur, JMIC, Jubbal has recorded the statement of Km. Shobha, daughter of accused (Tek Bahadur). He has personally assured himself that the statement of Shobha was voluntary. The statement was recorded as per the version of Shobha Devi under his supervision. The witness was identified by the I.O. He put his signatures on the statement after reading over the contents to Shobha. 12. PW-12 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 12.1.2013, Vinod Kumar Mokta resident of Labrot made a telephone call at PS Jubbal. He along with Const. Pyare Lal and others went to the spot. The statement of Vinod Kumar was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW-3/A. On the basis of his statement, FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered. The darat was taken into possession. The spot was investigated. The spot was also identified by the accused. He denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that accused was proclaiming on the spot that somebody hit his wife and ran away towards jungle side. He also denied the suggestion that accused has requested him to search for that person who ran towards jungle side. He prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 13. PW-13 SI/SHO Daya Ram Thakur deposed that on 16.1.2013 the case property was sent to FSL, Junga. The statement of Shobha, daughter of the accused, was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW-8/D. 14. PW-3 Vinod Kumar was the employer of the accused. The accused was residing in his house along with his family. He heard the cries of children on 11.1.2013 at around 11:30 PM. He came down and saw that accused was armed with darat. He asked the accused to hand over the darat. The darat was thrown by the accused. He informed his relations. They came on the spot. The police was also informed. The police reached the spot and the case property was taken into possession. The statement of PW-3 Vinod Kumar has been duly corroborated by PW-4 Aditya Parkash and PW-5 Pardeep Chand. The darat was thrown by the accused. He informed his relations. They came on the spot. The police was also informed. The police reached the spot and the case property was taken into possession. The statement of PW-3 Vinod Kumar has been duly corroborated by PW-4 Aditya Parkash and PW-5 Pardeep Chand. It has come in the statement of PW-3 Vinod Kumar that the accused used to administer beatings to his wife under the influence of liquor. He was also suspecting her character. 15. The cause of death, as per the statement of PW-1 Dr. Gagan Sharma, was hypovalemic shock following massive hemorrhage from wound site, probably leading to cerebral hypoxia and cardio pulmonary arrest. The post mortem report is Ext. PW-1/C. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the accused has vehemently argued that Roopmati received injuries when she accidently fell on the woodcutter in the darkness. This version cannot be believed. No blood marks were found on the wood cutter. The other defence taken by the accused is that somebody else gave blow on the neck of Roopmati and thereafter he fled away from the spot towards the jungle. This version also cannot be believed. There is no evidence on record to prove that Roopmati had any enmity with anybody. The suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused to this effect was denied by the I.O. PW-12 ASI Raj Kumar. The statement of Shobha Devi Ext. PW-8/D also gives credence to the prosecution version, the manner in which the accused has advanced darat blows on the neck of deceased Roopmati. Thus, the prosecution has fully proved the case against the accused under Section 302 IPC. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.