Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 144 (RAJ)

Alladeen v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-22

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, P.K.LOHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. This jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the accused-appellant to assail the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bhilwara camp Gangapur (for short 'the learned Trial Court') convicting him for offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment handed down sentence of life term imprisonment to the accused-appellant with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, for undergoing sentence of one month simple imprisonment. 3. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that complainant Shabeer Mohd. submitted a written report on 04.08.2006 before Police Station, Raipur alleging therein that today at 1:00 p.m. when his father Afzal Mohd. alias Abbu Ustad proceeded from the house for observing prayer (Namaj) towards Masjid and reached near house of Ganpatlal Dangi on the main road, he was intercepted by the accused-appellant. It is stated in the FIR that accused appellant was carrying a scissor in one hand and knife in the other and attacked his father Afzal Mohd. by stabbing in his stomach and neck with those weapons. In all 7-8 stab wounds were caused and due to grievous injury on the abdomen of his father, his intestine were exposed and on account of serious injuries, Afzal Mohd. succumbed to death on the spot. On the written complaint (Ex.P/1) of Sabeer Mohd. case No. 60/2006 under Section 302 IPC was registered culminating into FIR (Ex.P/23). Investigation was conducted by the police promptly and the accused-appellant was arrested. 4. During investigation, site plan was prepared, the blood stained cloths of the deceased were also recovered and weapon of offence was also recovered on information of accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the blood stained scissor was sent for FSL Examination. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, Bhilwara and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by its order dated 14.09.2006 transferred the matter to the learned Trial Court. 6. The prosecution in order to prove accusation against the appellant-accused examined 16 witnesses including medical evidence of PW-14 Dr. Ganpatlal Jain. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, Bhilwara and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by its order dated 14.09.2006 transferred the matter to the learned Trial Court. 6. The prosecution in order to prove accusation against the appellant-accused examined 16 witnesses including medical evidence of PW-14 Dr. Ganpatlal Jain. Besides oral evidence, prosecution also produced 27 documents and also made endeavour to prove recovery of weapon of offence scissor (Ex.P/24) on an information received from the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The accused-appellant also produced 3 documents in defence, which were exhibited as Ex.C/1 to C/3. 7. On conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court thoroughly examined evidence and other materials available on record including clinching evidence of four eyewitnesses PW-4 Dalel Singh, PW-5 Heeralal, PW-8 Abdul Rajjak and PW-9 Sushil Kumar. 8. The learned Trial Court also considered the medical evidence and autopsy report while recording its finding of guilt against the appellant. The learned Trial Court also made endeavour to scrutinise the documentary defence evidence and brushed aside the defence of the accused-appellant that at the time of commission of offence, he was mentally ill or of unsound mind. Finally, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and handed down the sentence aforesaid. 9. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor at length, analysed the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned record of the case. 10. Culpability of the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC requires re-visiting by the Court in this appeal. In order to thrash out the matter in its entirety, it is imperative for us to reapprise the evidence and other materials for scrutinising findings and conclusions recorded by learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment. The entire prosecution case hinges on ocular evidence of PW-4 Dalel Singh, PW-5 Heeralal, PW-8 Abdul Rajjak and PW-9 Sushil Kumar. 11. PW-4 Dalel Singh during his deposition has fully corroborated the prosecution story that the accused-appellant has stabbed the victim by scissor continuously on 5 to 6 times. The witness has also testified that stab wounds were inflicted on the neck and stomach of the victim. In his cross-examination, the testimony of witness has not been impeached. 11. PW-4 Dalel Singh during his deposition has fully corroborated the prosecution story that the accused-appellant has stabbed the victim by scissor continuously on 5 to 6 times. The witness has also testified that stab wounds were inflicted on the neck and stomach of the victim. In his cross-examination, the testimony of witness has not been impeached. In substance, while reiterating his version in the examination-in-chief, he has not been assertive about the number of stab wounds on neck and stomach of the victim. However, the witness has not distracted in proving involvement of accused-appellant for commission of crime. The witness has completely repudiated the defence that the accused-appellant is of unsound mind. 12. PW-5 Heeralal the other eyewitness has also supported the prosecution case in to to prove culpability of the accused-appellant for offence of murder. 13. Similarly, PW-8 Abdul Rajjak in his statements has fully concurred with the prosecution case. His presence on the scene of occurrence is also fully established inasmuch as site plan (Ex.P/2) and inquest report of dead body (Ex.P/3) bear his signature. That apart, Ex.P/4 by which dead body was handed over to him after conducting post mortem and recovery memos (Ex.P/6) & Ex.P/7 are also signed by him. The arrest memo (Ex.P/8) and Recovery Memo (Ex.P/9) also bear signatures of the witness. Moreover, in his examination-in-chief, the witness has also identified Articles 6, 7, 8 & 9 cloths of the deceased. On critical analysis of the cross-examination of the witness (PW-8), there remains no room of doubt that testimony of this witness has not been impeached by the defence. 14. The forth eyewitness, PW-9 Sushil Kumar has also corroborated the prosecution case to the hilt. Although this witness has been subjected to thorough cross-examination by the defence but in his deposition during cross-examination, there is no material alteration in his stand which he has taken in his examination-in-chief. 15. We have made sincere endeavour to scrutinise the testimony of all the eye-witnesses with caution so as to eliminate the possibility of any false implication. In our fair assessment, there is apparently no reason to discard the testimony of all the four ocular witnesses who have deposed in unison against the accused-appellant. 16. Besides that, the other prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Shabeer Mohd. In our fair assessment, there is apparently no reason to discard the testimony of all the four ocular witnesses who have deposed in unison against the accused-appellant. 16. Besides that, the other prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Shabeer Mohd. and PW-10 Sayara Banu who is wife of the victim are material witnesses to prove enmity between the victim and the accused for substantiating the motive for commission of offence. In their deposition, both the witnesses have stated that accused-appellant was ill-treating his wife and kids and on many occasions, victim has intervened to sort out their disputes. As per these witnesses, repeated intervention of victim was not taken in good taste by the accused-appellant and therefore, he harboured vengeance against the victim which led to commission of offence. 17. In the instant case, the prosecution has tendered requisite evidence to establish motive for commission of offence by the accused-appellant. The evidence, in this behalf, adduced by the prosecution appears to be reliable on the touchstone of prudency which has prompted the accused-appellant for commission of offence. As per basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence where there is direct evidence about murder, motive looses its significance. A direct and reliable evidence to prove crime is sufficient to belittle the importance of motive in a criminal trial. A case founded on circumstantial evidence may require a proof for motive of the crime but non-existence of motive is not relevant when there is direct and credible evidence as in the instant case. 18. The other important prosecution witness PW-14 Dr. Ganpatlal Jain who was one of the Members of the Medical Board which has conducted the autopsy of the deceased Afzal Mohd. alias Abbu Ustad has fully proved the autopsy report (Ex.P/25A) and also proved 10 stab wounds on the person of the victim of different dimensions besides one lacerated wound. The doctor has also deposed during his cross-examination that most of the injuries inflicted on the victim were of sharp-edged weapon. The witness has also shown cause of death namely, multiple injuries on the person of victim, massive blood loss and occurrence of hemorrhage. 19. It was really a gory tragedy in the family of the victim that when he (victim) was going to mosque for observing the prayer (Namaj) is intercepted by the accused and murdered cold bloodedly is a cause of grave and serious concern. 19. It was really a gory tragedy in the family of the victim that when he (victim) was going to mosque for observing the prayer (Namaj) is intercepted by the accused and murdered cold bloodedly is a cause of grave and serious concern. If the defence of the accused is examined thoroughly on the touchstone of Ex.C/1 to Ex.C/3 then it would ipso facto reveal that these documents are not reflecting the mental state of the accused-appellant at the time of commission of offence and these documents are posterior to the commission of offence. Moreover, no tangible evidence to substantiate the fact that accused-appellant was of unsound mind is tendered during the trial. 20. Legal position is no more res-integra that burden lies on the accused to prove his insanity at the time of commission of an offence for claiming immunity from criminal liability. Reliance in this behalf can be profitably made to a classic decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ahmadullah [ AIR 1961 SC 998 ]. 21. To invoke defence of insanity, it must clearly be proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. A mere fact that on formal occasions, the accused had been occasionally subject to insane delusions or had suffered from derangement of mind or that subsequently he had, at times, behaved like a mental deficient person, is per se insufficient to bring his case within the exception provided by Section 84 IPC. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly brushed aside the defence of the accused-appellant while recording the finding of guilt. 22. Thus, a cumulative reading of the entire prosecution evidence, testimony of reliable eyewitnesses supported by medical evidence, we conclude without any demur that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the accusation beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court, in our considered opinion has analysed the entire evidence in right perspective for recording finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. 23. Thus, a cumulative reading of the entire prosecution evidence, testimony of reliable eyewitnesses supported by medical evidence, we conclude without any demur that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the accusation beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court, in our considered opinion has analysed the entire evidence in right perspective for recording finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. 23. Upon examination of the impugned judgment in conjunction with the evidence and other materials available on record, we are unable to find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in this jail appeal. The impugned judgment is based upon sound appreciation of evidence and it is open-and-shut case wherein prosecution has established guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we fully concur with the findings and conclusions of the learned Trial Court and are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment. 24. The upshot of above discussion is that the instant jail appeal lacks in merit and the same is hereby dismissed.