Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1468 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-10-06

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 1374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused appellant assailing the judgment dated 4.2.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 80/2007 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellant for committing offence under Sections 302, 326 and 324 I.P.C. and passed the following sentence, which reads as under:- Under Section 302 I.P.C. Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI. Under Section 326 I.P.C. Five years Rl with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI. Under Section 324 I.P.C. One year Rl with fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days SI. 2. As per facts of the case upon Parcha Bayan, (Ex.P-41) of injured eyewitness Ajeet Singh, F.I.R. No. 53 was registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner on 8.5.2007. The, injured, eye-witness PW-6 Ajeet Singh (complainant) alleged in his statement that since last five years, the accused appellant Ram Chandra was working as labour in his agricultural field. During the said period, some times he used to stay in house, however, it was came to the knowledge of family members that he is having evil-eyes towards the ladies of the family he was removed from the service. On 7.5.2007 at about 10.00 pm, the complainant, and his mother Umaid Kanwar, grand mother Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar and great grand-mother Rukhama, sister Chandu and aunty Prerh Kanwar after taking meal sleeping in the house. In the night at about 1.00 accused appellant entered in the house having axe in his hand to Kill all of us. The accused appellant first inflicted injury to the complainant upon his neck and right hand, in the light of moon, the complainant identified accused appellant Ram Chandra. After inflicting injury to the complainant, the accused appellant caused injuries to all female members of the family, Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, Rukhama, Umaid Kanwar, Prem Kanwar and sister Chandu by axe upon their head and other parts of the body. The said incident was also seen by the complainant's aunty Bhalu Kanwar from her house. Due to the injuries caused to all members of the family, sister of the complainant Miss Chandu Kanwar died. The said incident was also seen by the complainant's aunty Bhalu Kanwar from her house. Due to the injuries caused to all members of the family, sister of the complainant Miss Chandu Kanwar died. As per allegation in the complaint, Ram Chandra became annoy and angry because he was removed from service as labour in the agricultural field of complainant for the reason that he was having bad intention towards the female members of the family. As per complainant the accused entered in the house with the bad intention on the date of incident at about 1.00 am in the night and inflicted injuries by axe to all the ladies of the family and complainant Ajeet Singh. 3. Upon aforesaid statements made in the, surgery ward of PBM Hospital, Bikaner at about 10.15 am on 8.5.2007 by the complainant, SHO Police Station Nokha registered F.I.R. No. 201 under Sections 307, 302, 450 I.P.C and commenced investigation. The Investigating Officer, PW-17 Bhagla Ram recorded statements of all the injured witnesses in the hospital where female family members of the complainant were under treatment and after registration of the F.I.R., he went on place of occurrence and prepared sight plan (Ex.P-22) and details of site were recorded vide Ex.P-22A. Photographs of the site were also taken and blood stained pillow and other material were seized on spot vide Ex.P-23. The blood stained soil was taken vide Ex.P-24. Mud (soil) were also taken from the spot vide Ex, P-25. One pair of sleepers were also taken in possession vide Ex. P-26 and simple soil was taken in possession vide Ex.P-27 and after completion of entire investigation, the accused appellant was arrested and upon information (Ex.P-59) of accused appellant Ram Chandra, the axe was recovered vide Ex.P-42. The investigating Officer after completing all the formalities of the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant the accused appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nokha under sections 302, 307, 326, 324 and 449 I.P.C. from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bikaner for trial, but learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner transferred the case to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Bikaner for trial. 4. The learned Trial Court commenced the trial while change against the accused appellant under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 and 449 I.P.C. after Providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused appellant. Sessions Judge, Bikaner transferred the case to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Bikaner for trial. 4. The learned Trial Court commenced the trial while change against the accused appellant under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 and 449 I.P.C. after Providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused appellant. The accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and prayed for trial. 5. To prove the prosecution case, statements of 18 witnesses were recorded including injured eye-witness Ajeet Singh (PW-6), PW-12 Prem Kanwar, PW-14 Umed Kanwar and PW-15 Bhanwar Kanwar so also eye-witness PW-8 Malu Kanwar. All injured witnesses were examined by the PW-5 Dr. Ghanshyam Das. In the incident, the sister of the complainant Chandra Kanwar died due to the injuries inflicted by the accused appellant, therefore, post mortem of body of the deceased was conducted by PW-5 Dr. Ghanshyam Das and post mortem report (Ex.P-35) prepared and given to the Investigating officer. The injury reports and I X-ray reports of all the injured persons are on record. 6. The learned Trial Court after recording statements of all the prosecution witnesses proceeded to record statement of the accused appellant Ram Chandra under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and gave explanation that I have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, further said that I was not having any bad eyes upon any of the female members of the family of complainant. There was no enmity in between me and the complainant's family. I have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of concocted story. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused appellant in the trial. 7. The learned Trial Court after recording entire evidence finally heard arguments of both the sides and convicted the accused appellant in Sessions Case No. 80/2007 vide judgment dated 4.2.2009 and held accused appellant guilty for offence under Sections 302, 326 and 324 I.P.C. and passed sentence aforesaid, but acquitted the accused appellant from the charge levelled against him under Sections 307 and 449 I.P.C. 8. In this appeal an application was moved by the accused appellant for remanding the case to the learned Trial Court for determination of his age. In this appeal an application was moved by the accused appellant for remanding the case to the learned Trial Court for determination of his age. Upon the said application on 9.7.2010 the coordinate bench issued direction to the learned Trial Court to permit the parties to lead their evidence for determination of age of appellant, as on the date of commission of offence so as to find out whether the appellant was juvenile as per definition enumerated in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 for short). A direction was given to the learned Trial Court to hold an inquiry for determination of age on the date of occurrence within three months. 9. The learned Trial Court in compliance of aforesaid order after recording evidence upon the application filed under Section 7(a) of the Act of 2006 passed an order on 28.9.2010 and held that the accused appellant was more than 18 years of age on the date of incident which is 7.5.2003 therefore, accused cannot be treated as juvenile. 10. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of the judgment on various grounds. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the statement of all the injured eye-witnesses there are so many contradictions and omissions, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant on the basis of such type of evidence is not sustainable in the eye of law, the whole prosecution story is based upon concocted and doubtful evidence because in the FSL report blood group 'B' was found upon the axe and cloths whereas as per the allegation of prosecution, accused appellant inflicted injuries by axe to six different persons, therefore, it cannot be said that all the injured were having blood Group 'B' the evidence, which is on record is not reliable so as to connect the accused appellant with the alleged crime. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that appellant belongs to very poor family and he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of so called allegation of prosecution for inflicting injury to various family members of the complainant. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that appellant belongs to very poor family and he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of so called allegation of prosecution for inflicting injury to various family members of the complainant. But allegations are not supported by the independent witnesses, all the witnesses are close relatives, therefore, judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and the accused appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him while giving benefit of doubt. It is also argued that order for determination of age is also erroneous. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case in which with ill motive, the accused appellant entered in the house of complainant and inflicted number of injuries by axe to all the female members of the family who were present in the house after causing injuries to the complainant, which is corroborated by the medical evidence due to the injuries caused by axe. the sister of complainant, Chandra Kanwar died on spot and in her post mortem report (Ex.P-33), Dr. Ghanshyam Das (PW-5) categorically stated that the injury which is caused to the deceased Chandra Kanwar were sufficient to cause death. The said doctor examined all the injured eye-witnesses and gave injury reports of all the injured witnesses, therefore, their testimony cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are close relatives. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case in which accused appellant was given employment by the complainant party and he was working in the agricultural field of complainant, but he developed bad intention for the young female member of the complainant's family, therefore, he has not only tried to outrage modesty of deceased Chandra Kanwar, but also mis-behaved with the mother of the complainant, therefore, the learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of injured eye-witnesses gave its finding that the accused appellant is guilty for committing offence under Sections 302, 326 and 324 I.P.C. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it is a case in which prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed because there is no merit in the appeal. 14. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined the entire evidence. 14. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined the entire evidence. As per evidence on record, F.I.R. was registered on the basis of Parcha Bayan of PW-6 Ajeet Singh who was injured eye-witness of the incident. The said witness categorically stated on oath before the Court that on 7.5.2007 when I and all the family members were sleeping in the house, at about 1-1.30 A.M., the accused appellant entered in the house having axe in his hand, first of all he inflicted injury upon me, and thereafter, caused injury by axe to other female members of the family Rukhama, Bhanwari Devi, Chandu Kanwar and Umed Kanwar and after inflicting injury he immediately run away from the place of occurrence. The complainant gave telephonic call to Sawai Singh who bring them to the Nokha Government Hospital where they were referred to the Bikaner Hospital, but Chandu Kanwar died on spot, therefore, her body remained in Nokha Government Hospital. In the cross-examination though detail cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the accused appellant, the witness PW-6 Ajeet Singh categorically deposed in his statements before the Court that the accused appellant inflicted injury by axe not only to him but caused injuries to Rukhama, Bhanwari Kanwar, Chandu Kanwar and Umed Kanwar and due to injuries inflicted by him to his sister Chandu Kanwar died. The other injured witnesses PW-12 Prem Kanwar, PW-14 Umed Kanwar and PW-15 Bhanwar Kanwar categorically stated on oath before the Court that accused appellant inflicted injury by axe upon their body. We have perused the statements of PW-5 Dr. Ghanshyam Das. The aforesaid witness categorically said before the Court that post mortem of Chandu Kanwar was conducted by him and prepared post mortem report (Ex.P-35) in which he gave opinion about cause of death. In the post mortem report Dr. Ghanshyam Das gave following opinion, which reads as under: "In my opinion cause of death is shock due to excessive blood loss from carotid vessels." 15. In the post mortem report, it is specifically mentioned that there was incised wound upon the neck of the deceased which was 5xlxbone deep on right side neck at c6 level. The said injury was ante mortem in nature. In the post mortem report, it is specifically mentioned that there was incised wound upon the neck of the deceased which was 5xlxbone deep on right side neck at c6 level. The said injury was ante mortem in nature. The doctor Ghanshyam Das after examining the other witnesses gave injury reports (Ex.P-36) of Ajeet Singh, (Ex.P-37) of Smt. Umed Kanwar, (Ex.P-38) of Prem Kanwar (Ex.P-39) of Smt. Rukham Kanwar and (Ex.P-40) of Smt. Bhanwari. In all the injury reports the doctor observed that there were incised wounds upon the different parts of body including head of the injured eye-witnesses after X-ray most of the injuries were found to be grievous. 16. The above evidence clearly revealed that in the incident occurred in the night of 7.5.2007 in the house of complainant Ajeet Singh, injured eye-witness, the accused appellant inflicted injuries by axe not only on the complainant Ajeet Singh but also to all the female members of the family including deceased Chandu Kanwar and due to said injuries Chandu Kanwar died on spot and other family members received grievous injuries upon their body. All the injured eye-witnesses, PW-12 Prem Kanwar, PW-14 Umed Kanwar, PW-15 Bhanwar Kanwar corroborated the prosecution case. 17. The accused appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-56 and upon his information (Ex.P-59) on 10.5.2007, blood stained axe was recovered vide Ex.P-42 in the presence of two witnesses Surendra Singh and Munney Singh. The said witness PW-7 Surendra Singh categorically proved recovery of said weapon axe upon information given by the accused appellant vide Ex.P-42. All the recovered articles were seized and were sent to the FSL for examination and in FSL report (Ex.P-68) dated 22.7.2007 it is reported that human blood was found upon all the seized articles and blood of 'B' group was found upon the axe recovered from the accused appellant, Paijama, Gudara cover, Jhmaphar, choli (bra) and Langot. As per the FSL report blood was found upon axe and cloths recovered by the Investigating Officer. We have considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to contradiction in the statements of witnesses. In our opinion, there is no material contradiction, upon which it can be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh & Ors. In our opinion, there is no material contradiction, upon which it can be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh & Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 held that testimony of injured eye-witnesses and close relatives cannot be discarded if corroborated by other evidence on record the paras No. 26 and 27 of the said judgment are relevant, which read as under:- 26. The High Court has disbelieved Balak Ram (PW-5), who had suffered the gunshot injuries. His evidence could not have been brushed aside by the High Court without assigning cogent reasons. Mere contradictions on trivial matters could not render his deposition untrustworthy. 27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, Balraje v. State of Maharashtra and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.). 19. In the present case, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt while leading evidence of inured eye-witnesses. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no strength in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We have also examined order for determination of age passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.9.2010 in pursuance of directions issued by this Court upon the application filed by the appellant. We have also examined order for determination of age passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.9.2010 in pursuance of directions issued by this Court upon the application filed by the appellant. In our opinion, the learned Trial Court after considering oral and documentary evidence gave correct finding that the accused appellant was more than 18 years of age on the date of incident which is 7.5.2007. 20. In view of the above, discussion, we are of the firm opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Bikaner: so as to hold accused appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 302, 326 and 324 I.P.C. and to punish him vide impugned judgment dated 4.2.2009 in Sessions Case No. 80/2007. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.