Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2264 (RAJ)

Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-12-06

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the appellant Narayan Lal against the judgment dated 25/02/2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No.09/2012, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Fine In Default 302 IPC Imprisonment for life 1,000/- 1 months' R.I. 447 IPC 1 months' R.I. 300/- 7 days' R.I. 323 IPC 3 months' R.I. 500/- 15 days' R.I. Facts in brief are : 2. The prosecution case emanates from the complaint filed by Babulal (PW.1) alleging inter alia that on 29/05/2010 at around 7 a.m. morning, he brought water from the Well and was standing in the courtyard of his house when his brother, accused Narayan Lal assaulted him from behind by inflicting an axe blow on his head due to which he fell on the floor and his father Lalu Ramji tried to hold him and made him to sit on the cot. The accused Narayan Lal inflicted a fatal blow on the head of complainant's father also. In the meantime, Jija (wife of his brother Dinesh) and others also came on the spot and Narayan Lal accused fled from the spot. His relationship with his brother was strained because of some money transaction and for this reason, the accused assaulted him as well as his father. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR No.259/2010 was registered at the Police Station Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur against the accused for the offences under Section 447 & 323 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302, 323 and 452 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Section 302, 323 and 452 to the accused appellant who denied the charge and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and 24 documents were exhibited and in defence, as many as 2 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that Babulal and Dinesh are step brothers. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that Babulal and Dinesh are step brothers. He also stated that Babulal is mentally weak, who all of a sudden becomes violent and attacks anybody without any reason. For this reason, his wife has also deserted him. Babulal had assaulted his father Lalu Ram with a lathi and in the incident, he himself got injured on his hand. Because he is the step brother, the complainant is trying to grab his house and land by falsely implicating him in this case. His wife, son and the neighbours had seen Babulal assaulting his father Lalu Ram. At the time of this incident, he had gone for doing his labour job. His family was attacked and thrown out of the house and his land and house were usurped by the complainant party. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 25/02/2013. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Deepak Menaria appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is being falsely implicated in this case only with an intention to grab the house and land of the appellant as he is the step brother of the complainant. The appellant is having no role in the entire incident as his brother Babu Lal is mentally weak and often gets violent and in that process indulges into assaulting anybody for no reason. In the present case also, Babulal assaulted his father-deceased Babulal and during the altercation, he received injuries. Learned counsel, therefore, has tried to submit that even as per the statement of PW.1 Babulal and PW.10 Smt. Manjula, it has come on record that Babulal is suffering from mental disorder and for the purpose, treatment was also given including electric shocks, and therefore, the present incident happened because of the violent behaviour of PW.1 Babulal. 11. Learned counsel, therefore, has tried to submit that even as per the statement of PW.1 Babulal and PW.10 Smt. Manjula, it has come on record that Babulal is suffering from mental disorder and for the purpose, treatment was also given including electric shocks, and therefore, the present incident happened because of the violent behaviour of PW.1 Babulal. 11. Alternatively, learned counsel has submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused to inflict fatal injuries to his father as it is a case of a solitary blow and there are no repeated injuries caused by the appellant. There was no intention to give fatal blow to his father, he received the same while intervening in the quarrel going on between the appellant & Babulal. Therefore, the case of the appellant may be considered as the one falling under Part I of Section 304 IPC and has prayed that the appellant has already undergone judicial custody of more than eight years and, therefore, he may be released while converting his conviction from the offence under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304(I) IPC. 12. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the offences alleged against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. PW.1 Babulal who is an injured eye witness and the brother of the accused categorically stated that the accused assaulted him at his house and while his father was helping him to sit on the cot, he inflicted fatal blow with a sharp edged weapon (Karadi) on his head which resulted into his father's death. He further submits that the medical evidence, postmortem report, the recovery of the weapon of offence on the information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the FSL Report showing the blood group of the deceased on the weapon of offence fully corroborates the version of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, learned trial Court was absolutely right in convicting the appellant for the offence alleged in this case vide judgment dated 25/02/2013. 13. Having considered the submissions made at bar and scrutinized the record of the trial Court, we note that PW.1 Babulal is an injured eye witness who deposed that at around 7 a.m. when he was standing in the courtyard of his house, the accused assaulted him with a Karadi and he fell on the ground. 13. Having considered the submissions made at bar and scrutinized the record of the trial Court, we note that PW.1 Babulal is an injured eye witness who deposed that at around 7 a.m. when he was standing in the courtyard of his house, the accused assaulted him with a Karadi and he fell on the ground. While he was being helped by his father, the accused inflicted Karadi blow on his father Lalu Ram who instantaneously fell on the ground. Thereafter with the help of his mother and neighbours, they were taken to the hospital. He works in mine and his mental condition is weak. He further stated that the accused Narayan is his step brother who lives in a separate house. 14. PW.2 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma who conducted autopsy of the deceased Lalu Ram stated that the head injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 15. PW.6 Smt. Jija who is the wife of Dinesh stated that while she was at home, she saw Narayan Lal assaulting Babulal and Lalu Ram. Lalu Ram became unconscious because of axe blow inflicted by the accused Narayan Lal and thereafter she informed her husband and the injured were taken to the hospital. Ex.P.3 is the injury report of injured Babulal. 16. Ex.P.13 is the recovery memo of blood stained axe. Ex.P.22 is the information given by the accused Narayan Lal for the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. blood stained axe (karadi). Ex.P.24 is the FSL report showing the blood group 'A' on the weapon of offence (Karadi) which is matching the blood group of the deceased. 17. PW.1 Babulal and PW.6 Smt. Jija are eye witnesses of the incident. Their presence during the incident is quite natural as the incident took place inside their own house and, therefore, their presence cannot be doubted. The testimony of PW.1 Babulal becomes clinching and trustworthy as he also suffered injuries in the incident as mentioned in Ex.P.3 (injury report). 18. As per the statement of Dr. Akhilesh Sharma and postmortem report of the deceased Lalu Ram, the injury inflicted by the accused to the deceased was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. 19. 18. As per the statement of Dr. Akhilesh Sharma and postmortem report of the deceased Lalu Ram, the injury inflicted by the accused to the deceased was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. 19. Having considered the argument advanced, we are not at all impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that because of mental weakness of Babulal, he used to become violent and had thus inflicted injury to his father in his unstable mental state PW.1 Babulal and PW.6 Smt. Jija in their depositions have narrated the complete sequence of events without any embellishment clearly establish that the fatal injury had been inflicted by the accused-appellant to the deceased. Their testimony is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the FSL report which completely belies the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. 20. The argument that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out & instead, the accused be held guilty of the lesser offence under Part I of Section 304 IPC is also not palatable to us because the appellant went to the house of Babulal in the morning hours with an Axe (Karadi) clearly depicting his intention which was followed by the repeated blows given one after other to Babulal and Lalu Ram. Therefore, in our opinion, we do not find it a fit case for converting the offence of Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. 21. From the reading of statements of the prosecution witnesses, the following facts clearly emerge : (i) Accused Narayan Lal is the step brother of Babulal and Dinesh. (ii) Father Lalu Ram lives in the house of Babulal and Dinesh. (iii) Babulal is not having sound mental state and he is suffering from mental weakness. (iv) There was some dispute with respect to financial transaction between the accused and Babulal. (v) Babulal suffered the injuries as per injury report (Ex.P.3) & (vi) The time and place of the incident is in the early morning at 7 a.m. in the house of Babulal. (vii) . Recovery of blood stained "Karadi" on the information given by the accused. (viii) .Blood Group-"A" found on Karadi (weapon of offence) was the same as that of the deceased. (ix).Both eye-witnesses have given convincing testimony to prove that the appellant was the assailant. 22. (vii) . Recovery of blood stained "Karadi" on the information given by the accused. (viii) .Blood Group-"A" found on Karadi (weapon of offence) was the same as that of the deceased. (ix).Both eye-witnesses have given convincing testimony to prove that the appellant was the assailant. 22. In the circumstances noted above, we see no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and the findings recorded by learned trial Court points towards the only logical conclusion that it was the appellant alone who inflicted fatal blow to his father Lalu Ram and also caused injury to his brother Babulal. Thus, learned trial Court was absolutely justified in convicting the appellant vide judgment dated 25/02/2013. 23. In view of the detailed discussion as above, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2013. 24. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.