Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2062 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Fakre Aalam @ Khacchu

2019-07-30

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of. 2. Accused-Fakre Aalam @ Khacchu had faced trial in FIR No.73 dated 30.04.2014 registered at Police Station Makbara, District Kota City under Sections 323, 327 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Offence under Section 302 IPC was added after the death of victim Mohammad Kasam. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.04.2014 at about 3.30 p.m., Mohammad Kasam was sitting in his cloth shop. Accused came there and asked for Rs.20/- from Mohammad Kasam (father of the complainant) for purchase of liquor. When Mohammad Kasam refused to give money, then accused abused him. Then, accused left the shop after threatening the victim and then came with a knife and gave a blow with it to the victim. As a result, victim started bleeding and was removed to the hospital for treatment. However, victim succumbed to his injury on 15.05.2014. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused. 5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302 and 329 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 6. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eighteen witnesses during trial. Accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. He had not committed any offence. 8. Accused examined four witnesses in his defence. 9. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 25.11.2016 ordered the conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 304, 329 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Act. Hence, the accused has filed appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court, whereas, State has filed appeal seeking conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC. 10. Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Accused after threatening the victim had returned to his shop with a knife and had inflicted injury to him. Hence, it was established that the accused had the intention to commit the offence of murder. 11. 10. Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Accused after threatening the victim had returned to his shop with a knife and had inflicted injury to him. Hence, it was established that the accused had the intention to commit the offence of murder. 11. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. All the witnesses were interested witnesses and had deposed falsely against the accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case conviction of the accused was liable to be upheld under Section 304 IPC, the sentence of the accused qua imprisonment be reduced. 12. Present case relates to murder of Mohammad Kasam. Case rests on eye-witness account. 13. Complainant-Mohammad Rafiq while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-4 Kamruddin, PW-5 Abdul Rashid, PW-7 Mustak Ahmad, PW-8 Sagir Ahmad, PW14 Abdul Latif Ansari and PW-15 Zafar Ahmad. 14. PW-10 Dr. Arun Sharma deposed that on 01.05.2014, he had medically examined Mohammad Kasam and found one injury on his person. He proved the injury report of the victim Exhibit-P-16. He further deposed that the stab injury was result of a knife. 15. PW-12 Dr. Surendra Meena deposed that on 15.05.2014, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohammad Kasam and he proved postmortem examination report Exhibit-P-20. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the deceased had suffered only one injury and had undergone an operation. 16. The other witnesses have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by them. 17. DW-1 Kamruddin deposed that on 30.04.2014, one person had hit another person with a knife and had run away. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen the face of the assailant. 18. DW-2 Abdul Sattar, DW-3 Aamin and DW-4 Chhannu Bai have corroborated statement of DW-1. In their cross-examination, they deposed that they had not seen the face of the assailant. 19. Thus, in the present case, ocular version is corroborated by medical evidence to the effect that the accused had given a stab injury to the deceased with a knife on 30.04.2014. The statements of eye-witnesses, being natural inspires confidence. In their cross-examination, they deposed that they had not seen the face of the assailant. 19. Thus, in the present case, ocular version is corroborated by medical evidence to the effect that the accused had given a stab injury to the deceased with a knife on 30.04.2014. The statements of eye-witnesses, being natural inspires confidence. The said witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination with regard to the manner of incident and involvement of the accused in the crime. The said witnesses had no reason to falsely involve the accused in this case and shield the real culprit. The defence witnesses examined by the accused fail to rebut the statements of the eye-witnesses. As a result of the injury suffered by the victim, he died on 15.05.2014. As per the postmortem examination report, the cause of death of the deceased was septicemia shock as a result of antemortem liver injury and diaphoretic injury and its complication. 20. Thus, it is established from the statements of the eyewitnesses that victim had been inflicted a stab wound by the accused in his abdomen. Deceased was inflicted one injury by the accused. As per the ocular version, accused was demanding Rs.20/- from the victim for purchase of liquor and when he was not given the said amount, he inflicted injury with a knife to the victim. Apparently, the intention of the accused was to inflict injury to the victim and had no intention to commit his murder. Accused had not repeated further injury to the victim. It appears that when the accused was not given money by the victim for purchase of liquor, then out of anger, he inflicted injury to the victim. However, accused had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him could result in the death of the victim, but had no intention to commit the murder of the victim. 21. In these circumstances, learned trial court had, thus, rightly come to the conclusion that the case would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC, but would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC. Learned trial court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 21. In these circumstances, learned trial court had, thus, rightly come to the conclusion that the case would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC, but would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC. Learned trial court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Although, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the accused be reduced, but keeping in view the nature of injury inflicted by the accused and other circumstances of the case, no ground for reduction of sentence qua imprisonment of the accused is made out. 22. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed. Impugned judgment/order of the trial court dated 25.11.2016 are upheld.