Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1917 (RAJ)

Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-08

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 02/2013: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/ 6 Months' R.I. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentences awarded by the trial court, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution story emanates from the written report (Ex. P/2) submitted by Jaswant Singh son of Gurbachan Singh (the deceased herein) to the SHO, Police Station Raisingh Nagar on 22.10.2012 at 08.30 pm. Shri Jaswant Singh alleged in the said report that he was a resident of Kakusinghwala. In the evening, at about 06.15 pm., his father Gurbachan had gone to the shop of Harchand Lal which is located near their house. When his father did not return home for 10-15 minutes, he too went towards the shop of Harchand Lal. When he had reached to a distance of about 1 bigha from the shop, he saw his father and Jassa Mistri having hot talks with each other. Jassa Singh Mistri went towards his house, came back with a gandasi in his hand, pushed his father who fell down on the ground. No sooner, his father had fallen down, Jassa Singh gave a gandasi blow on his temporal region due to which, he received a large cut wound. On seeing the informant reaching at the place of occurrence, Jassa Singh ran away. Jaswant Singh raised a hue and cry on which, numerous persons viz. Ghagha Singh S/o. Mithu Singh, Golo, etc. collected and they also saw the incident. His father was taken to the Raisingh Nagar Hospital where he was declared dead. Jassa Singh assaulted his father with a gandasi with intention to kill him. On the basis of the said report, an FIR No. 391/2012 (Ex. P/3) was registered at the Police Station Raisingh Nagar for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation was assigned to Shrawan Das, SHO, Police Station Raisingh Nagar (PW-10). He conducted formal investigation viz. preparation of Panchayatnama of dead body, seizure of clothes of the deceased, site plan, etc., collected the postmortem report, recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses, seized the various blood stained articles. The accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P/15) dated 23.10.2012. He conducted formal investigation viz. preparation of Panchayatnama of dead body, seizure of clothes of the deceased, site plan, etc., collected the postmortem report, recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses, seized the various blood stained articles. The accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P/15) dated 23.10.2012. He gave voluntary information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Information Act on 24.10.2012 (Ex. P/16) that he had concealed the Kaapa used in the assault in the septic tank situated at his maternal grandfather Sukhdev Singh's house. In furtherance of the voluntary information supplied by the accused, a Kaapa was recovered from the septic tank vide seizure memo (Ex. P/8). The control articles and the recovered weapon were forwarded to the FSL from where, FSL report (Ex. P/24) was received with the opinion of the expert that the Kameej and Safa of the deceased, the blood stained soil collected from the place of the incident and the Kaapa recovered at the instance of the accused, were all stained with 'A' group human blood. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Since the offence was sessions triable, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar for trial. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the above offence who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents to prove its case. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated and that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case for oblique motive. In arguendo, his submission was that the incident occurred over a trivial dispute that took place between the accused and the deceased at the shop of Harchand Lal (PW-1). In arguendo, his submission was that the incident occurred over a trivial dispute that took place between the accused and the deceased at the shop of Harchand Lal (PW-1). The accused had admittedly gone to the shop of Harchand Lal for buying vegetables. He was selecting the vegetables when the deceased intervened in a high-handed manner and started quarrelling with the accused. At that time, a sudden altercation ensued between the deceased and the accused appellant and in the heat of the moment and upon being provoked, the accused gave a solitary blow to the deceased by the weapon held by him. He thus urged that the case of the accused clearly falls within the exceptions 'firstly' and 'fourthly' of Section 300 IPC and hence, his conviction deserves to be toned down from the charge under Section 302 IPC to that of Section 304 Part I IPC. He further urged that there is a grave discrepancy in the prosecution evidence regarding the nature of weapon attributed to the accused appellant. Whilst some of the witnesses have alleged that the accused was holding a gandasi, the others have stated that he was armed with a Kaapa. He thus urged that the recovery of weapon made at the instance of the accused deserves to be discarded. On these grounds, he implored the Court to set aside/modify the impugned judgment and accept the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhati vehemently and fervently urged that the evidence of the eye-witnesses Harchand Lal (PW-1) and Jaswant Singh (PW-2) conclusively establishes the fact that the appellant went to his house after the trivial quarrel, brought a dangerous weapon and intentionally assaulted the deceased Gurbachan Singh on his temporal region without any cause, justification or provocation. He urges that it is clearly deposed by Harchand Lal and Jaswant Singh that after the trivial altercation which happened between the two at the shop of Harchand Lal, the accused went back to his house, brought the sharp weapon with him and intentionally assaulted the deceased. He urges that it is clearly deposed by Harchand Lal and Jaswant Singh that after the trivial altercation which happened between the two at the shop of Harchand Lal, the accused went back to his house, brought the sharp weapon with him and intentionally assaulted the deceased. He urged that in view of the fact that there was an interregnum between the trivial quarrel which took place between the accused and the deceased i.e. the accused went to his house, picked up the weapon, came back and assaulted the deceased brutally on the head, no instance for toning down of the offence can be attributed to the acts of the accused in the present case. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the deposition of the medical witness (PW-5) Dr. Badri conclusively establishes that the incised wound admeasuring 12 cm. X 1½ cm. inflicted on the temporal region of the deceased resulted from the penetration of the weapon upto cranial cavity causing the fracture of left temporal bone. The injury was proved instantaneously fatal. He thus submitted that the evidence of Harchand Lal and Jaswant Singh is duly corroborated by the medical testimony as well as the fact that the weapon of offence having blood of the same blood group as that of the deceased, was recovered on the voluntary information supplied by the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar and have minutely appreciated the evidence available on record. 7. The witness Harchand Lal (PW-1) is the person in whose shop, the initial quarrel between the accused and the deceased took place. Having examined the statement of Harchand Lal (PW-1) minutely, we find that he is an independent witness of sterling worth. He stated that he runs a Kirana Shop. On 22.10.2012 in the evening at about 06.00-06.30 pm., he was at his shop. Gurbachan Singh was also sitting there for settling their account towards the sale of corp produce. The accused Jassa Singh came to his shop for purchasing lemon, tomato and green chilly. The witness went towards refrigerator for taking out the lemons and Jassa Singh was selecting the chillies. At that time, Gurbachan Singh caught hold of Jassa Singh's arm and told him not to select the vegetables. The accused Jassa Singh came to his shop for purchasing lemon, tomato and green chilly. The witness went towards refrigerator for taking out the lemons and Jassa Singh was selecting the chillies. At that time, Gurbachan Singh caught hold of Jassa Singh's arm and told him not to select the vegetables. The witness asked Gurbachan not to quarrel with Jassa Singh. Immediately, Jassa Singh went back to his house. Harchand Lal suggested Gurbachan Singh that he should also return to his house. He called Mithhu Singh, the brother of Gurbachan Singh who was standing at the lane opposite to his shop. Thereafter, he resumed the work at his shop. A little later, he saw that Jassa Singh who had gone to his house, was standing with a Kaapa in his hand and Gurbachan Singh was lying injured on the ground. He saw Jassa Singh running away from a distance of 10-15 ft. The witness got frightened and went back to his house and closed the same from inside. In cross-examination, the defence suggested that both Jassa Singh as well as the deceased were intoxicated and that Gurbachan Singh had caught hold of the hand of Jassa Singh to which the witness replied in the negative to the factum of intoxication. He feigned ignorance to the said factum as divulged by him in Ex. D/1. On the suggestion of defence, the witness stated that Jassa Singh ran away from the scene of the occurrence. The public prosecutor re-examined the witness wherein, he admitted that when he saw Jassa Singh near Gurbachan Singh who had fallen down at that time, Jassa Singh was holding the Kaapa in his hand. Having thoroughly evaluated this statement, we are of the firm opinion that nothing could be elicited by the defence in the cross-examination which can dilute or nullify the testimony of the witness regarding the facts stated by him in the examination-in-chief. The witness saw the initial quarrel between the deceased and the accused which took place at his shop. The allegation made by the witness that Jassa Singh went back from the shop after the initial quarrel was not disputed by the defence in cross-examination. The witness saw the initial quarrel between the deceased and the accused which took place at his shop. The allegation made by the witness that Jassa Singh went back from the shop after the initial quarrel was not disputed by the defence in cross-examination. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that from the evidence of this witness, it is duly established that initially Jassa Singh and Gurbachan Singh quarrelled over the trivial matter of selecting vegetables inside the shop of Harchand Lal; thereafter, Jassa Singh was asked to go away by Harchand Lal and a little later, the witness heard a commotion, came out of his shop and saw Jassa Ram armed with a Kaapa/gandasi and Gurbachan Singh lying on the ground in an injured condition. 8. PW-2 Jaswant Singh, being the son of the deceased, categorically stated that his father Gurbachan Singh had gone to the shop of Harchand Lal. He followed his father about 5-7 minutes later. Initially, the witness saw Jassa Singh rushing towards his house who came out with a small gandasi which is commonly known as Kaapa, pushed his father down on the ground and also assaulted him with the Kaapa on the temporal region. In cross-examination, the defence tried to impeach the witness with various suggestions viz.: (i) that the deceased was armed with a pistol which the witness denied; (ii) It is mentioned in the previous statement (Ex. P/2) that injury was caused by a gandasi and not by Kaapa; (ii) that the deceased went towards the house of Jassa Singh with the pistol in order to kill him; (iii) that his father fell down on the road as he was severely intoxicated and received the head injury by a sharp object on the ground; (iv) that the accused Jassa Singh @ Jaswant Singh had been falsely implicated owing to enmity; however, the witness did not deter from the version stated by him in his examination-in-chief. 9. On going through the entire cross-examination conducted from Jaswant Singh (PW-2), we are duly satisfied that nothing adverse could be elicited by the defence which would dilute the evidence given by the witness in his examination-in-chief. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is duly established that the accused initially was seen going to his house. 9. On going through the entire cross-examination conducted from Jaswant Singh (PW-2), we are duly satisfied that nothing adverse could be elicited by the defence which would dilute the evidence given by the witness in his examination-in-chief. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is duly established that the accused initially was seen going to his house. Thereafter, he came back from his house carrying a gandasi in his hand which in common parlance is also known as a Kaapa. He pushed the Gurbachan Singh down on the ground, inflicted a Kaapa blow on his temporal region which proved fatal. The evidence of this witness is corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of Harchand Lal (PW-1) and the evidence of the medical officer Dr. Badri Mehra (PW-5). The deceased was an old man of about 80 years and thus, the defence theory that he was the aggressor or that he gave grave and sudden provocation to the accused thereby initiating the attack, is absolutely lame and untenable. 10. On going through the statement of the medical officer Dr. Badri, it is clear that while conducting the postmortem upon the body of Gurbachan Singh aged about 80 years, he noticed an incised wound admeasuring 12 cm. X 1½ cm. on the left side of the face behind the ear proceeding to the mastoid process and was cavity deep. Upon dissection, a fracture was noticed on the temporal bone, over the cranial cavity and was continuing towards the base of the skull. Blood was collected in the sub-occipital region. The injury was caused by a sharp weapon and was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The witness categorically stated in his cross-examination that this injury could not be caused by a fall. The SHO (PW-10) Shrawan Das narrated various steps taken by him during the investigation, including the arrest of the accused, the voluntary information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/7) and the factum of recovery of the sharp weapon at his instance vide recovery memo (Ex. P/8). The blood stained soil collected from the place of the occurrence, the blood stained apparel of the deceased and the Kaapa recovered at the instance of the accused were forwarded to the FSL for comparison from where, FSL report (Ex. P/7) and the factum of recovery of the sharp weapon at his instance vide recovery memo (Ex. P/8). The blood stained soil collected from the place of the occurrence, the blood stained apparel of the deceased and the Kaapa recovered at the instance of the accused were forwarded to the FSL for comparison from where, FSL report (Ex. P/24) was received with the finding that all these articles tested positive for presence of 'A' group human blood. In view of the tangible and unimpeachable evidence as available on record, we are of the firm opinion that an inescapable conclusion has to be drawn that the accused inflicted the sharp weapon blow on the head of the deceased without being provoked in any manner. The provocation if any, ended at the time when the witness Harchand Lal broke up the trivial quarrel between the accused and the deceased which had taken place inside his shop. The accused was sent back to his house and had enough time to contemplate and cool down and thus, the provocation if any would have been nullified by then and thus, the defence of grave and sudden provocation which was argued by learned counsel Shri Soni in support of the prayer to tone down the offence, is not available in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts clearly imply that having indulged in the trivial quarrel with the deceased, the accused went back to his house and had time and opportunity to compose himself. In this interregnum, he made a preparation for committing the offence by returning to the spot after arming himself with a dangerous weapon, looked out for Gurbachan Singh, with the sheer intention to kill him, pushed the old man who was aged about 80 years down and inflicted a fierce blow on his head by the sharp weapon. The fervent contention of Shri Soni that there is a discrepancy between the description of the weapon in the evidence of the witnesses is noted just to be rejected. The witness (PW-2) Jaswant Singh has given a clear explanation that the small Gandasi which the accused brought from his house also known by the name of Kaapa. 11. As we have discussed above, the injury caused by the accused on the head of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and proved instantaneously fatal. 11. As we have discussed above, the injury caused by the accused on the head of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and proved instantaneously fatal. Thus, it is our firm opinion that the case of the accused appellant does not fall within any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC and the learned trial court was perfectly justified in convicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or shortcoming whatsoever warranting interference. 12. Hence, we affirm the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 13. Record be returned to the learned trial court forthwith.