Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1228 (RAJ)

Vinit v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-25

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. On 25.03.2019, the accused-appellant - Vinit @ Tinku Soni was summoned from the Central Jail, Udaipur because Mr. Deepak Menaria, learned counsel representing the accused-appellant pleaded no instructions. On 04.04.2019, the accused-appellant was produced before this Court and stated that he did not have means to engage a counsel to argue his appeal because of his indigent status. In the circumstances, Mr. Kaluram Bhati was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in the appeal. 2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the Judgment dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 30/2013 (State V/s Vinit) whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. 3. In nutshell, the prosecution case emanates from a written report (Ex. P./1) submitted to the SHO, Police Station Gantaghar, District Udaipur by one Jai Prakash Soni (P.W. 1) on 28.01.2011 to the effect that his father-in-law Rodilal, who was 70 years of age, was staying with his son Vinit alias Tinku in the house of Balkrishan Paliwal situated in Kothariyon Ki Gali. At around 8:00 A.M., the neighbour and landlord Balkrishan informed him that his father-in-law Rodilal was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Upon getting this information, he and his wife reached at the place of incident and saw his father-in-law Rodilal having injury on his head and was profusely bleeding. His clothes were drenched in blood. He and his wife took help of some neighbors and got Rodilal admitted in the hospital. His brother-in-law Vinit was missing from the house. He was totally convinced that his father-in-law was assaulted by his son Vinit with intention to kill him. He believed so for the reason that Vinit had assaulted his father-in-law in the past as well. 4. On this written report, an FIR No. 02/2011 was registered at Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur for the offences under Section 307 & 324 of I.P.C. and the investigation was commenced. 5. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rodilal (Ex. 4. On this written report, an FIR No. 02/2011 was registered at Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur for the offences under Section 307 & 324 of I.P.C. and the investigation was commenced. 5. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rodilal (Ex. P/32) while he was undergoing treatment at Ward No. 16, Neurosurgery Ward, M.B.G. Hospital, Udaipur on 31.01.2011 wherein he stated that he was staying in a rented premises as his son Vinit Soni was harassing and threatening him for last 1-2 years. He was not staying in his own house due to fear of his son. 15-20 days ago, his son damaged his house and for this reason, he was behind the bars in the Central Jail. He got him bailed out from the ADM Court. After being released on bail, his son was staying with him in the rented house. He repeatedly counselled him to get himself engaged in some work as it was very difficult to sustain for both of them in Rs. 2,000/- which he was earning from Chowkidari (Guard Duty). His son Vinit threatened him that if he did not fulfill his demands, he will be killed. 8-10 days ago also, his son tried to assault him but he escaped and went to the house of his daughter Asha and stayed there for 3-4 days. On 27.01.2011 at around 8:00 - 9:00 P.M., his son came to the house. He took his meals and went for sleep. In the meantime, his son told him that since he was not staying in the house at Jagdish Chowk, therefore, asked to handover the keys to him or sell that house. When he refused, his son asked for Rs. 50/- from him, which was also denied by him, therefore, being annoyed and frustrated, his son went outside, brought a stone and hit him with the same shouting that he will kill him today. Because of the injury sustained by him, he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the hospital. In this manner, his son Vinit assaulted him with the stone with intention to kill. 6. The injured - Rodilal died while undergoing treatment on 02.02.2011 and therefore, the police added Section 302 of I.P.C. in the matter. In the meantime, the police arrested the accused-appellant vide Arrest Memo (Ex. P/23) on 30.01.2011. 7. In this manner, his son Vinit assaulted him with the stone with intention to kill. 6. The injured - Rodilal died while undergoing treatment on 02.02.2011 and therefore, the police added Section 302 of I.P.C. in the matter. In the meantime, the police arrested the accused-appellant vide Arrest Memo (Ex. P/23) on 30.01.2011. 7. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 8. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/32 in support of its case. 10. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial, which he denied and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and was innocent. However, despite granting opportunity, the accused-appellant did not produce any evidence in his defence. 11. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide Judgment dated 01.02.2014. Hence this appeal. 12. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 13. Mr. Kaluram Bhati, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has vehemently submitted that there is no evidence on record, which shows that the injury was inflicted by the present appellant to his father Rodilal. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The relationship between him and his father was not cordial and therefore, he had been falsely implicated. Since, there is no direct evidence of inflicting the fatal injury to Rodilal, the learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the facts and thus, has committed an error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence alleged vide judgment dated 01.02.2014. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that in the present case, there was only a single injury on the head of the deceased which was cause of death of the deceased Rodilal. He, therefore, submits that the act done by the accused-appellant was in sheer frustration and in the heat of moment. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that in the present case, there was only a single injury on the head of the deceased which was cause of death of the deceased Rodilal. He, therefore, submits that the act done by the accused-appellant was in sheer frustration and in the heat of moment. Thus, the conviction of the accused-appellant may be altered from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to Section 304 Part - I of I.P.C. 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment dated 01.02.2014 and contended that the statement of Rodilal (Ex. P/32) recorded by the police while he was alive and undergoing treatment clearly establishes the fact that the accused who was not on cordial terms with his father, demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him and upon being denied, he went outside the room, brought a stone and assaulted his father Rodilal causing the fatal head injury. He further argued that even the testimony of PW. 1 - Jai Prakash Soni (brother-in-law of the accused-appellant) and P.W. 4 - Smt. Pooja Soni (wife of the accused-appellant) shows that on earlier occasions also, the accused-appellant had assaulted the deceased and was regularly harassing and maltreating him. He further contended that the recovery of bloodstained stone vide Recovery Memo (Ex. P/8) and the bloodstained clothes of accused-appellant as well as deceased having "B" group human blood clearly establishes the involvement of the accused-appellant in the case. He further submits that the learned trial court, after evaluating the entire facts and evidence, came to the only possible and logical conclusion while convicting the accused-appellant for the offence alleged in the present case vide Judgment dated 01.02.2014, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 16. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have carefully and threadbare perused the entire evidence available on record. 17. P.W. 1 - Jai Prakash Soni being son-in-law of the deceased Rodilal has stated almost on the same lines as narrated by him in the written report (Ex. P/1). 18. P.W. 2 - Balkrishan Paliwal, who was staying at the first floor of the house, stated that the relationship between Rodilal and his son Vinit was very strained and on earlier occasions also, Rodilal was assaulted by the accused-appellant. The mal-treatment was a regular feature. 19. P/1). 18. P.W. 2 - Balkrishan Paliwal, who was staying at the first floor of the house, stated that the relationship between Rodilal and his son Vinit was very strained and on earlier occasions also, Rodilal was assaulted by the accused-appellant. The mal-treatment was a regular feature. 19. P.W. 4 - Smt. Pooja Soni (wife of accused-appellant) stated that she was misbehaved, beaten up and maltreated by the accused-appellant and therefore, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house. An FIR was also got instituted by her and despite an order passed by the Family Court directing the accused-appellant to pay monthly allowance of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-, nothing was paid to her. She further deposed that the accused-appellant assaulted his father on a number of occasions in the past. Upon getting the information that her father-in-law had been assaulted and admitted in the hospital, she went with her parents to see him. The accused-appellant remained behind the Bars on 12-13 occasions. 20. P.W. 5 - Smt. Asha Soni (daughter of the deceased Rodilal and sister of the accused-appellant) deposed that the accused-appellant was harassing her father and often indulged in quarrel with him. He had assaulted his father many times in past also. 21. P.W. 15 - Dr. Anees Ahmed, who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased described the injury on the body of the deceased Rodilal and stated that the cause of death was ante mortem head injury sustained by him, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 22. P.W. 17 - Banshi Lal, SHO, Police Station Ghantaghar, the Police Officer, conducted investigation of the matter and stated that he recorded statements of the witnesses, effected recoveries, collected samples and after completion of investigation, as prescribed in law, submitted the report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 23. The postmortem report of the deceased Rodilal is Ex. P/26 wherein the cause of death was stated to be ante mortem head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The recovery memo of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. stone is Ex. P/8, which was recovered pursuant to the information of the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/24). The F.S.L. Report is Ex. The recovery memo of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. stone is Ex. P/8, which was recovered pursuant to the information of the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/24). The F.S.L. Report is Ex. P/30 wherein the blood group "B" was found on the weapon of offence i.e. stone as well as clothes of the accused-appellant matching the blood group found on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased sent for F.S.L. examination. 24. A close examination of the statement of Rodilal (Ex. P/32) which assumed the character of a dying declaration after his death by the injury caused to him clearly depicts the conduct of the accused-appellant as well as the sequence of events in which he received such injury. We are convinced that the statement of the deceased Rodilal (Ex. P/32) provides wholesome evidence required to unfold the prosecution story in all its truthfulness. The same is reliable and credible. The statement of Rodilal (Ex. P/32) gets fortified from the deposition of P.W. 1 - Jai Prakash Soni, who is brother-in-law of the accused-appellant and P.W. 4 - Pooja, who is wife of the accused-appellant. These witnesses in their evidence have categorically mentioned that Rodilal was being assaulted by the accused-appellant almost regularly and because of this, the deceased Rodilal himself was also helpless. The counselling by the deceased Rodilal also fell on the deaf ears of the accused-appellant. We also note that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that apart from assaulting and harassing his father Rodilal on previous occasions, on the fateful day also, on having been denied a paltry sum of Rs. 50/-, the accused-appellant inflicted fatal injury on the head of his father with the stone. The conduct of the appellant disentitles him any sympathetic consideration. 25. We are convinced that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is very well corroborated from the medical evidence as well as the recovery of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. stone, and the FSL report showing "B" blood group on the weapon of offence i.e. stone as well as clothes of the accused-appellant matching the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased establishing the fact that it was the accused-appellant alone and none else, who committed the offence alleged in the case. We do not see any reason for false implication of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased as well as accused-appellant. 26. The argument with respect to the alteration of conviction of the accused-appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC is noted to be rejected as the intention on the part of the accused-appellant was very clear and specific for the reason that when the deceased refused to give the keys of the house and sell the house owned by him as also denied to pay a paltry sum of Rs. 50/- to the accused-appellant, he went outside the house in anger and brought a stone with which he inflicted the injury on the vital part i.e. head of his father with such a force that it ultimately proved fatal and the old man could not be saved despite treatment. The conduct of the accused-appellant proves the cruelty and torture meted out by him to his father. In these circumstances, we are not persuaded to convert the conviction of the accused-appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. 27. Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The judgment and order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned trial court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.