Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2003 (RAJ)

Hansraj v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-19

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 128 dated 03.06.2012 registered at police station Lakheri, District Bundi under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 02.06.2012 at about 11.00 p.m., appellant had gone to his in-laws' house. House of complainant Jankilal was near the house of the in-laws of the appellant. Bhanwar Lal was sleeping outside his house along with his son Kamlesh. On hearing noise created by the appellant, Bhanwar Lal went to the house of Mohanlal and saw that the appellant was quarrelling. Bhanwar Lal intervened and appellant threatened him that he would kill him. Thereafter, appellant gave two knife blows to Bhanwar Lal. As a result, Bhanwar Lal died. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that he was innocent. The knife-in-question did not belong to him, nor he had inflicted injuries to the deceased with the knife. 6. Appellant examined two witnesses in his defence. 7. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 06.08.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 8. Learned State counsel, has opposed the appeal. 9. Present case relates to murder of Bhanwar Lal. Case rests on eye-witnesses account. Complainant Jankilal while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 10. PW-2 Kamlesh has deposed that on 02.06.2012 at about 11.00 p.m., he was sitting with his father Bhanwar Lal. In the meantime appellant, under the influence of liquor, came and started quarrelling with his father-in-law Mohanlal and mother-inlaw. House of Mohanlal was near their house. Bhanwar Lal went to the spot and intervened. Appellant gave two blows with a knife in the chest of his father. He ran to rescue his father but appellant gave a knife blow on his hand. Then, appellant sped away from the spot on his motorcycle. As a result, his father died on account of injuries suffered by him. 11. PW-4 Gangadhar has corroborated the statement of PW-2. Appellant gave two blows with a knife in the chest of his father. He ran to rescue his father but appellant gave a knife blow on his hand. Then, appellant sped away from the spot on his motorcycle. As a result, his father died on account of injuries suffered by him. 11. PW-4 Gangadhar has corroborated the statement of PW-2. PW-3 Barji Bai (mother-in-law of the appellant), PW-5 Nirmla (wife of the appellant) and PW-6 Damodar did not support the prosecution case, during trial. 12. PW-7 Dr. Ganeshlal Meena deposed that on 03.06.2012 he has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Bhanwar Lal. He proved the postmortem report Exhibit P-7. 13. A perusal of the postmortem report Exhibit-P-7 reveals that the deceased had suffered two stab wounds in his chest. The cause of death of the deceased was due to the stab wounds puncturing the heart. 14. Thus, in the present case, ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The statement of the eye-witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 being natural inspire confidence. The said eyewitnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination. The eyewitnesses had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. Prosecution case is duly established by PW-1 Jankilal (complainant), PW-2 Kamlesh (son of the deceased) and PW-4 Gangadhar (person residing in the neighbourhood). 15. DW-1 Buddhi Prakash has deposed that he knew appellant Hansraj. About three years ago, they had gone to the police station as Pannalal and Jamna Shanker were present there. Then, police officials said that leave appellant Hansraj in the police station. Pannalal and Jamna Shanker were released. When they had gone to the police station, at that time, one knife about one feet long was lying on the table. Police officials said that they would release appellant Hanshraj after making enquiries from him. 16. DW-2 Ghashilal has corroborated the statement of PW-1. DW-1 is residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant, whereas, DW-2 is relative of the appellant. Statements of DW-1 and DW-2 fail to advance the case of the appellant as the same is duly established from the statements of the eye-witnesses, who had witnessed the occurrence. DW-1 & DW-2 fail to rebut the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. 17. DW-1 is residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant, whereas, DW-2 is relative of the appellant. Statements of DW-1 and DW-2 fail to advance the case of the appellant as the same is duly established from the statements of the eye-witnesses, who had witnessed the occurrence. DW-1 & DW-2 fail to rebut the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. 17. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether, in the present case, it is culpable homicide amounting to murder or it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 18. As per the prosecution case, appellant had gone to the house of his in-laws under the influence of liquor and was quarrelling with his in-laws. Deceased Bhanwar Lal was residing in the neighbourhood of the in-laws of the appellant. Bhanwar Lal had gone to intervene, on seeing the appellant quarrelling with his inlaws. Thus, it can be said that the appellant had no intention to commit the murder of Bhanwar Lal. It appears that since, Bhanwar Lal had intervened while appellant was quarrelling with his in-laws, appellant inflicted injuries to Bhanwar Lal, which resulted in his death. This shows that the appellant, on the spur of the moment, without any premeditation, had inflicted two knife blows to the deceased in his chest and the nature of the said injuries was such that they were likely to cause of death. 19. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC but falls within the ambit of Section 304(1)IPC. 20. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. Appellant is held guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 304(1) IPC and is convicted thereunder. Appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 21. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.