Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2095 (RAJ)

Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-01

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellant Jamnalal has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.06.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 13/2011. Offence Under Section Sentence Fine Fine Default sentences 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 6 months R.I. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- Pannalal (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex. P/1) with the SHO, Police Station Asind on 08.10.2011 alleging inter alia that his uncle Devilal S/o. Pratap Balai was having a son Jamnalal and six daughters, all of whom were married and were residing at their matrimonial homes. His uncle Devilal and his wife Smt. Devli used to reside with their son Jamnalal and daughter-in-law Kamla. Jamnalal was in habit of quarrelling with Devilal after consuming liquor. He was pacified on a number of occasions but he did not desist from his offensive attitude. He had beaten Devilal on numerous occasions but as he was the only son, no complaint against him was ever filed with the police. On 07.10.2011, Devilal, Jamnalal and Kamla were present in the house. Devli had gone to her daughter's house because the girl was expecting. The informant was present at his house. At about 9:30 pm. in the night, Jamnalal started beating, Devilal who raised a hue and cry. The informant thought it to be the routine happening and took it casually and did not go to their house. In the morning, Jamnalal's wife Kamla was seen crying stating that Kakaji had died. The informant went to the house of Devilal and saw that he was lying dead with numerous injuries on his body and the clothes were drenched in blood. Jamnalal was a habitual drunkard and he was out to snatch ornaments of his mother from his father. But as he could not succeed, he used to beat Devilal up. On the previous day also, Jamnalal asked money to buy liquor from Devilal who did not concede to his demand, upon which, he was beaten to death. Devilal's body was lying in the house. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 177/2011 (Ex. But as he could not succeed, he used to beat Devilal up. On the previous day also, Jamnalal asked money to buy liquor from Devilal who did not concede to his demand, upon which, he was beaten to death. Devilal's body was lying in the house. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 177/2011 (Ex. P/18) was registered at the Police Station Asind for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was assigned to Laxman Ram Bishnoi (PW-14) SHO, Police Station Asind, who inspected the site; collected the blood stained clothes of the deceased and the blood stained and control soil from the place of the incident. A Tirpal' stained with blood was also seized from the spot. Panchnama of the dead body of Devilal was prepared. The dead body was forwarded to the Asind Hospital for autopsy from where, the postmortem report (Ex. P/15) was issued. The I.O. thereafter proceeded to record the statements of the material witnesses. The accused Jamnalal was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P/9) and was interrogated. Jamnalal gave a voluntary information (Ex. P/21) to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in furtherance whereof, the clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident and a wooden stick were recovered and seized vide seizure memos (Ex. P/10 & Ex. P/11). The seized articles were forwarded to the FSL from where, a report dated 18.11.2011 (Ex. P/22) was received. After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Jamnalal in the concerned court for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. Since the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara. The trial court framed charges against the accused Jamnalal for the offence under Sections 302 of the IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. After hearing the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and, upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant Jamnalal as above by the impugned judgment. After hearing the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and, upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant Jamnalal as above by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel Shri R.K. Charan representing the accused appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned judgment is bad in facts as well as in law. There is no evidence whatsoever on the record of the case which can satisfy the Court that the accused murdered his own father Devilal. He contended that the evidence of witness Pannalal (PW-1) is not reliable. As per him, Pannalal claimed to have seen Jamnalal beating Devilal but, still he did not intervene and made no attempt whatsoever to save his real uncle Devilal. He urged that no other witness of the prosecution gave ocular evidence against the accused and hence his conviction as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 IPC is absolutely unjustified. He further submitted that the recoveries which the I.O. claims to have effected in furtherance of the information provided by the accused, are totally unbelievable and fabricated. He further contended that the best evidence regarding the offence could have been given by Kamla but the prosecution did not choose to examine her in evidence and as such, adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused-appellant Jamnalal of the charge. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor fervently and vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the accused is the son of Devilal. He alongwith his wife Kamla was living in Devilal's house. He urged that not only the witness Pannalal but a number of other witnesses have given positive evidence at the trial that the accused was in a habit of assaulting his own father Devilal the deceased, after consuming liquor. The accused was having an evil eye on the ornaments of his mother (Devilal's wife) which Devilal was not parting with. Thus, the accused regularly indulged in beating his own old father. Finally, the cruelty crossed all limits and on the day of incident i.e. 07.10.2011, the accused brutally assaulted his father Devilal by a stick. The accused was having an evil eye on the ornaments of his mother (Devilal's wife) which Devilal was not parting with. Thus, the accused regularly indulged in beating his own old father. Finally, the cruelty crossed all limits and on the day of incident i.e. 07.10.2011, the accused brutally assaulted his father Devilal by a stick. The cries of pain of the old man were heard by Pannalal (PW-1), Magna (PW-4), Gheesalal (PW-5) and Laxman Balai (PW-7). He pointed out that Laxman Balai, who is an independent witness, has given cogent evidence stating that he heard the fervent cries of Devilal who was being beaten by Jamnalal. The witness intervened and requested Jamnalal to relent but he did not listen and continued to assault the old man. Learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court's attention to the evidence of Dr. Nemichand (PW-10) who proved the postmortem report (Ex. P/15) as per which, as many as four injuries were observed on the body of the deceased. Injury No. 1 was a bruise admeasuring 6 cms. X 4 cms. on the left side of chest resulting into fractures of underlying fourth and fifth ribs. Injury No. 2 was a bruise on the left side of neck which resulted into fracture of the hyoid bone and compression of all vocal organs. Injury No. 3 was a bruise admeasuring 4 cms. X 3 cms. on the lower jaw resulting into fracture of mandible bone on the right side. Injury No. 5 was a bruise admeasuring 1 cm. X 1 cm. on the neck which resulted into fracture of cervical bone and the neck was also broken. The injuries were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further submitted that the I.O. (PW-14) Laxman Ram Bishnoi gave positive evidence to the effect that he recovered the blood stained clothes and a wooden stick on the information of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court's attention to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he has tried to give an explanation that he came from his field and saw his father lying on the cot whereas, his wife was sleeping. He tried to lift his father on which, his clothes got stained with the blood of his father. He tried to lift his father on which, his clothes got stained with the blood of his father. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the clothes of the deceased, the bedding on which his dead body was lying, the blood smeared soil, the clothes of the accused, the stick recovered at his instance, all tested positive for the presence of 'O' group human blood as per the FSL report. He thus urged that the evidence led by the prosecution during trial conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record and have perused the impugned judgment. 8. The FIR (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Pannalal being the nephew of deceased Devilal and cousin brother of the accused Jamnalal. Apparently, there was no enmity whatsoever between Pannalal and Jamnalal which could have persuaded Pannalal to lodge a frivolous report or to give false evidence against the accused. On going through the statement of Pannalal, who was examined as PW-1 at the trial, we are duly satisfied that the witness has given a truthful version of the incident. The witness categorically mentioned in the FIR that Jamnalal was in a habit of treating his father with cruelty and used to assault him because he was having an evil eye on the ornaments of his mother which Devilal was retaining with himself. On the fateful day, the witness whose house is at a distance of 50 ft. from the house of Devilal, heard the fervent cries of Devilal on which he went there. He saw Jamnalal assaulting Devilal with a stick. The witness clearly stated that Devilal died because of the injuries inflicted to him by the accused. The witness also proved the site inspection plan, the seizure memo of clothes of the accused, the seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased, etc. In cross-examination, a question was put to the witness to which, he replied that he himself drafted the FIR in which, all the facts which he saw, were narrated truthfully. The witness also stated that Kamla was present at the spot on the day of the incident. The witness further stated that he could not save Jamnalal because the gate was closed from inside. 9. The witness also stated that Kamla was present at the spot on the day of the incident. The witness further stated that he could not save Jamnalal because the gate was closed from inside. 9. Ramchandra (PW-2) also gave evidence on almost the same lines. He stated that Jamnalal assaulted his father Devilal on the fateful night. The witness stated that he heard the cries coming from inside the house and did not go in. It can be inferred from the evidence of this witness that Devilal was being beaten inside his house and he was crying out in pain. 10. PW-3 Godu stated that he heard Jamnalal beating his father Devilal. He was in a habit of doing so. His house is located just nearby to the house of Jamnalal and Devilal. Jamnalal was demanding the gold ornaments from his father. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not go to the house of Devilal on the fateful day. Thus, the evidence of this witness is not conclusive against the accused. 11. The witness Magna (PW-4) also did not see the incident and made a conjecture that Jamnalal killed his father. 12. The evidence of PW-7 Laxman Balai is very significant. He stated that on the fateful night, at about 09.30 pm., Jamnalal was beating his father. He was in a habit of doing so. He was demanding money from his father for buying liquor. If anybody tried to talk sense to him, the accused would hurl abuses. Devilal shouted on which, the witness went to his house and saw Jamnalal assaulting Devilal with a stick. The witness and a few other people, who had collected there, requested the accused to relent but the accused did not stop his cruel behavior with his own father. 13. PW-10 Dr. Nemichand proved the postmortem report of the deceased as Ex. P/15. We have already described the injuries observed by the doctor (supra) and hence, the same need not be repeated. As stated above, the deceased was suffering from significant injuries on his chest, his hyoid bone and cervical bone were broken and the neck was broken too. Thus, the injuries were inflicted in an extremely cruel manner leaving no room for any doubt that the intention of the accused was to kill his own father and nothing short of that. As stated above, the deceased was suffering from significant injuries on his chest, his hyoid bone and cervical bone were broken and the neck was broken too. Thus, the injuries were inflicted in an extremely cruel manner leaving no room for any doubt that the intention of the accused was to kill his own father and nothing short of that. The I.O. Laxman Ram (PW-14) gave convincing evidence to establish that he recovered the blood stained clothes and a stick in furtherance of the information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Witnesses Narayan Singh (PW-9), Laluram (PW-11) and Yusuf Mohd. (PW-13) were posted as Head Constables at Police Station Asind and have given cogent and convincing evidence regarding the safe keeping of the samples seized by the I.O. and the transmission thereof in the self same condition till the same reached the FSL. The FSL report was proved as Ex. P/22 as per which, the clothes worn by the deceased, the blood smeared soil collected from the place of the incident, the clothes of the accused and the stick recovered in furtherance of the information given by him to the I.O., all tested positive for presence of 'O' group human blood. 14. Thus, we are convinced that the prosecution led wholesome and convincing evidence establish the guilt of the accused for the murder of his own father. The defence taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was present at his field and returned home at about 11 O' clock when he saw his father's dead body lying on a cot, is absolutely false, frivolous and untenable. If at all, the accused was desirous of establishing this defence, then he could have got examined his wife Smt. Kamla as a defence witness because as per the version of the accused himself, she was the only other person present in the house when his father Devilal was assaulted. However, the lady was not produced and examined as a defence witness. 15. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in a just and apropos manner and reached to the only possible and logical conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused for the charge of murdering his own father. 15. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in a just and apropos manner and reached to the only possible and logical conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused for the charge of murdering his own father. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or shortcoming whatsoever warranting interference. 16. Hence, we affirm the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.13/2011. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 17. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.