Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 67 (RAJ)

Ishaq v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-08

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By the judgment dated 27.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases & Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, in Sessions Case No.86/2005(36/2005), appellant-accused Ishaq has been found guilty of committing the murder of his wife Khurshida and has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof to further undergo four months' simple imprisonment. 2. The appellant-accused has preferred these two appeals against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence; one from jail and the other through advocate. The appeal filed through advocate was admitted for hearing vide order dated 13.09.2006 and the jail appeal was tagged with the said appeal. Since both the appeals have been preferred against the same impugned judgment and order, therefore, both these appeals are decided together. 3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present case are that on 29.09.2005, Mohd. Aslman presented himself before the SHO, P.S. Merta City and submitted a written report to the effect that he went to Makrana to meet his sister and at about 2 o'clock, in the night, his cousin Rashid ¼cqvk dk yM+dk½ informed him on telephone that his (Rashid's) mother has been killed by his (Rashid's) father by 'basola' and 'stick'. Thereafter, he (complainant) came to the dhani at Ladva and found his aunty ¼cqvk½ lying on the floor surrounded by blood. It was also submitted that Rashid was also sought to be killed but he ran away and hide himself in the field. 4. On the above said report (Ex.P/8), the First Information Report No.276/2005 under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation was commenced and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet for offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant-accused. The learned trial court, after hearing, framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant-accused for which he denied and claimed trial. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and proved Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/26. Thereafter the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed prosecution evidence as false and submitted that he is innocent and he has been implicated falsely and did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and proved Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/26. Thereafter the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed prosecution evidence as false and submitted that he is innocent and he has been implicated falsely and did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. Thereafter, after hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the accused, the learned trial court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant-accused preferred this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri I.R. Choudhary and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Vishnu Kachhawaha and perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence with available record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused Sri Choudhary has submitted that the eye-witness of the incident is a child witness and has given the statement under influence thus his testimony cannot be relied upon. Still without considering any material, learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant-accused and sentenced as aforesaid, therefore, the appeal of the appellant-accused may be allowed. In the alternative, it was submitted that at the most, the case falls under Section 304 Part-I IPC and prayed that the conviction and sentence may be amended. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the testimony of Rashid (PW-1) is totally reliable and he gave information soon after incident. It was also submitted that human blood was found on the basola and the clothes of deceased and accused. He further submitted that as per medical evidence the cause of death of deceased is hemorrhage and injury to vital organ. He inflicted repeated blows from basola on the head which is the vital part of the body and the same was found to be sufficient for causing her death, therefore, it is a clear case of murder. 11. Rashid Mohd. (PW-1) deposed that the on the day of incident, his father (appellant-accused) asked his mother (deceased) for tea on which his mother told that sugar was not available in response to which his father inflicted a stick blow on her legs. 11. Rashid Mohd. (PW-1) deposed that the on the day of incident, his father (appellant-accused) asked his mother (deceased) for tea on which his mother told that sugar was not available in response to which his father inflicted a stick blow on her legs. Thereafter, he intervened and lay his mother on the cot on which his father became angry and ran behind him, therefore, he hide himself in the field. Thereafter, his father inflicted blows on the head of his mother from basola on which his mother died and his father fled away. He thereafter informed his grand-mother and also informed his cousin Aslam who lodged the FIR. 12. Aslam (PW-11) deposed that on the date of incident he was at Makrana to meet his sister. In the night Rashid informed about the incident. Thereafter, they came to Ladva and on reaching there he saw that his aunty ¼cqvk½ lying dead. He submitted written report (Ex.P/8) on which FIR was registered. 13. From the statements of above witnesses, it is clear that it was the appellant-accused who inflicted injuries to the deceased and the incident was seen by Rashid (PW-1) and same was reported to Aslam (PW-11) and statements of both these witnesses are corroborative with each other. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted that the eye-witness of the incident is Rashid (PW-1), who is a child witness and his testimony cannot be believed. 15. Under section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, every person is competent as a witness unless the Court considers that he is prevented from considering the question put to him or from giving reasonable reason because of the factor of age i.e.; tender or extreme age. This prevention is based on the presumption that children could be easily tutored and therefore can be made a puppet in the hands of the elders. In this regard the law does not fix any particular age as to the competency of child witness or the age when they can be presumed to have attained the requisite degree of intelligence or knowledge. 16. Bismillah (PW-2), who is grand-mother of Rashid (PW-1), deposed that she was informed by Rashid (PW-1) about the incident on which she came at the place of incident and saw Khurshida (deceased) lying dead on the floor and Ishaq (appellant-accused) ran away. 16. Bismillah (PW-2), who is grand-mother of Rashid (PW-1), deposed that she was informed by Rashid (PW-1) about the incident on which she came at the place of incident and saw Khurshida (deceased) lying dead on the floor and Ishaq (appellant-accused) ran away. In cross-examination she deposed that she and Rashid (PW-1) remained there till morning and Rashid (PW-1) did not go anywhere. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any chance of tutoring this witness. Further from the statement of Rashid (PW-1) it is clear that he can understand the things and can answer the questions. As a matter of prudence courts often show chary of putting absolute reliance on the evidence of a solitary child witness and look for corroboration of the same from the facts and circumstances in the case, In our country, particularly in rural areas it is difficult to think of a load of 13 year as a child. A vast majority of boys around that age go in fields to work. They are certainly capable of understanding the significance of the oath and necessity to speak the truth. The trial court is the best judge in the matter of deciding the competency of such a witness as there, the child himself appears before the court. Therefore it has opportunity to see him, notice his demeanors, record his evidence and thereafter to scrutinize his testimony. In the present the learned trial court also considered this aspect of the matter and has rightly reached at the conclusion that the said witness could have understood the things and has thus rightly relied upon the testimony of this witness. 17. Thus, in view of the above, we find that the prosecution has proved, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused caused the death of deceased by inflicting basola blows and thus, he was guilty of committing culpable homicide. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident took place under sudden provocation and thus the case falls under the purview of Section 304 Part-I IPC and has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Saroj alias Suraj Panchal & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal ( (2014) 4 SCC 802 ). 19. Dr. Om Prakash Inani (PW-16) conducted postmortem of the deceased and after postmortem, prepared a report (Ex.P/13) and found scalp described on paget. vs. State of West Bengal ( (2014) 4 SCC 802 ). 19. Dr. Om Prakash Inani (PW-16) conducted postmortem of the deceased and after postmortem, prepared a report (Ex.P/13) and found scalp described on paget. There was fracture of frontal, parietal bone on left side and fracture extend from posteriorly vertex left and anteriorly on frontal bone 2 cm above left eye shocket 15 cm X ½ cm. It was also deposed by him that there were three injuries on the head which were sufficient to cause death. The cause of death was found to be haemorrhage and head injuries. 20. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant-accused inflicted basola blows repeatedly on the head, which is a vital part of the body. Thus, it cannot be said that the incident took place in sudden provocation. 21. In the case of Saroj alias Suraj Panchal (supra), there was love affair between the deceased and the daughter accused No.1 and the deceased went to the house of accused to meet the daughter of accused No.1, due to which they became annoyed and gave beating on which the deceased died. It was thus held that nobody would tolerate such an intrude into their house in the night hours and thus held that in no case it can be held to be a case of premeditation and it was a case of grave and sudden provocation and would come under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Sher Singh vs. Haryana ( AIR 2011 SC 373 ), observed that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased reveal the intention of the accused. 23. In the case in hand, the appellant-accused inflicted three blows on the head of the deceased with basola, which is a sharp-edged weapon and this clearly reveal the intention of the appellant-accused to cause death of his wife. Therefore, this case will not fall under section 304 IPC and he is liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC. 24. In view of the above, the prosecution case was, therefore, established beyond doubt. The learned trial court has also rightly appreciated the evidence and has also rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, which does not warrant any interference by this court. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 25. 24. In view of the above, the prosecution case was, therefore, established beyond doubt. The learned trial court has also rightly appreciated the evidence and has also rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, which does not warrant any interference by this court. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 25. The record of the court below be returned with the copy of the judgment.