Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1974 (RAJ)

Darling v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-16

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 20 dated 16.01.2009 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur City (South) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution story, as per the FIR, in brief, is that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar was working as a goldsmith. Appellant-Darling @ Chotu Pandurang Godse was residing with his uncle in the same room. On 15.01.2009 at about 11.15 p.m., appellant brought Balmiki Baburao Khandekar to the house of the complainant and, thereafter, complainant also accompanied them in the auto rickshaw and injured was taken to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. Complainant was informed by the appellant that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had suffered injuries as he had fallen from the roof. Balmiki Baburao Khandekar was declared dead by the hospital authorities at 11.55 p.m. Complainant came home after depositing the dead body in the mortuary. On 16.01.2009, Babu Vitthal met the complainant in the morning and told him that the appellant had inflicted injuries to Balmiki Baburao Khandekar with the help of an iron hammer. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove its case. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he had gone out at night after taking meals. When he returned after half an hour, he found that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar was bleeding from his head. On enquiry from Baba Vitthal Godse, he came to know that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had fallen from height, under the influence of liquor and had suffered injuries. He immediately called an auto rickshaw. He had not got effected the recovery of hammer. His signatures had been taken by the police on blank papers. He was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 6. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, appellant had taken Balmiki Baburao Khandekar to the hospital as he had suffered injuries on account of fall from the roof. 8. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 9. 6. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, appellant had taken Balmiki Baburao Khandekar to the hospital as he had suffered injuries on account of fall from the roof. 8. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 9. Complainant Gopinath Kishan Dukare while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Complainant also deposed that initially appellant and Balmiki Baburao Khandekar were running a shop jointly, but later they had started running their separate shops. Shop run by Balmiki Baburao Khandekar was doing good business, whereas, the shop run by appellant was not doing good business and due to this reason, appellant remained upset. 10. PW-2 Baba Vitthal Godse deposed that he was working as a goldsmith. Accused present in the court was also working as a goldsmith. He knew Balmiki Baburao Khandekar. On 15.01.2009, he had taken meals with the appellant and Balmiki Baburao Khandekar after closing the shop. At the request of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar, he applied 'moov' on his back. Balmiki Baburao Khandekar became sleepy. Thereafter, appellant inflicted injuries on the head of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar with the help of a hammer. Balmiki Baburao Khandekar raised alarm. Appellant gave five/six more blows with the help of a hammer to Balmiki Baburao Khandekar and told him (witness) to remain quite. On account of injuries suffered by him, Balmiki Baburao Khandekar lost his consciousness. Then appellant said that they should take Balmiki Baburao Khandekar to Gopinath Kishan Dukare, nephew of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar. Thereafter, appellant brought an auto rickshaw and took Balmiki Baburao Khandekar in the auto rickshaw. Before appellant could take Balmiki Baburao Khandekar in the auto rickshaw, brother of their employer had come in a car and he was told by the appellant that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had fallen from the stairs and had suffered injuries. He was asked to get down from the auto on the way. He came home and then he went to the hospital. In the morning, at 6.00 a.m., he came to Jhotwara and saw that blood in the room had been cleaned by the appellant and he had spread blood on the stairs by way of evidence. Then they reached the hospital. He narrated the entire incident to Gopinath Kishan Dukare. He came home and then he went to the hospital. In the morning, at 6.00 a.m., he came to Jhotwara and saw that blood in the room had been cleaned by the appellant and he had spread blood on the stairs by way of evidence. Then they reached the hospital. He narrated the entire incident to Gopinath Kishan Dukare. His statement was recorded by the police. 11. PW-4 Dhanna Lal Kumar deposed that he was working as a goldsmith. His shop was below his residential premises. On 15.01.2009, at night time, he had seen the appellant bringing Balmiki Baburao Khandekar from the stairs. He enquired from the appellant as to what had happened. Appellant told him that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had fallen from the stairs and had suffered injuries. However, when he checked the stairs, he could not see any blood stains on the stairs. In the morning, he went to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur and came to know that Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had not fallen from the stairs, but had been inflicted injuries by the appellant with the help of a hammer. 12. PW-5 Sanwal Ram has corroborated the statement of PW-4. 13. PW-6 Dr. Priyanka Sharma has proved the postmortem examination report of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar Exhibit-P-19. A perusal of the postmortem examination report reveals that there were four injuries on the scalp of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar. 14. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution relate to the investigation conducted by them. 15. Thus, in the present case, which rests on eye-witness account, statement of the eye-witness PW-2 is duly corroborated by medical evidence. As per the eye-witness, appellant had given number of blows on the head of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar with the help of a hammer. As per the postmortem examination report, there are four injuries on the scalp of Balmiki Baburao Khandekar. Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had suffered a lacerated wound on his right temporo-parietal region, one lacerated wound on his right parieto-occipital region, one lacerated wound on his right lower occipital region and one lacerated wound on his left lower occipital region. Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had also suffered fracture of right temporo-parietal region below scalp injury No. 1. 16. Thus, the ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 17. So far as PW-2 is concerned, he was cross-examined at length, but his testimony with regard to the manner of occurrence could not be shattered. Balmiki Baburao Khandekar had also suffered fracture of right temporo-parietal region below scalp injury No. 1. 16. Thus, the ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 17. So far as PW-2 is concerned, he was cross-examined at length, but his testimony with regard to the manner of occurrence could not be shattered. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court had, thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the charges framed against him. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment/order dated 05.06.2010 passed by the trial court are upheld.