Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2262 (RAJ)

Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-22

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide the judgment dated 1.2.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 110/2011: For offences under Sections Sentences and fine Default sentence Section 379 I.P.C. 1 Year's R.I. & Rs. 1000/- 2 Months' S.I. Section 302 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment & Rs. 5000/- 1 Year's S.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 disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow. 4. Kachru son of Devaji Meena (P.W. 1) gave an oral information to the S.H.O. P.S. Dholapani at the place of incident (Bodo Ka Fala, Dholapani) alleging that his daughter Narayani aged 28 years had been married to Laxman son of Bhera Meena (the appellant herein) about 8 years ago. Narayani was regularly going to the matrimonial home after her marriage. Two children (a girl and a boy) aged 6 years and 3 years respectively were born from the wedlock of Laxman and Narayani. About 7 to 8 years ago, his younger brother's son Rama was to be married. Narayani came to attend the wedding. On the day of the wedding, Laxman also arrived. After the wedding program was over, Laxman forced Narayani to accompany him on the very same night. Narayani refused to go on which, Laxman quarrelled with her. The informant and his family members tried to counsel Laxman that he may take Narayani with him on the next morning but Laxman took Narayani with himself forcibly. In the previous evening (before lodging of the report) at about 5 to 6 o'clock, the complainant was coming back to his home after guarding the mango trees. On the way, the complainant's brothers Balu son of Mangla, Narayan son of Amra and Dharma son of Dhuda, all residents of Bodo Ka Fala, Dholapani, met him and disclosed that they were working in the field of Lakhma when Laxman came and told them to visit his house. Thereafter, they all went to the house of Laxman but did not notice anything untoward. While they were returning, Laxman told them to go towards the Khakhra tree on which, they went to that direction and saw that Narayani had been beaten and tied to a tree. Thereafter, they all went to the house of Laxman but did not notice anything untoward. While they were returning, Laxman told them to go towards the Khakhra tree on which, they went to that direction and saw that Narayani had been beaten and tied to a tree. The silver Kadiya (weighing half kg) worn by her had also been taken out. The complainant also went there and came to know that Narayani had been killed by Laxman and her body had been tied to the tree. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an F.I.R. No. 25/2011 came to be registered at the Police Station Dholapani, District Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conducting the usual investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. 5. As the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh for trial. The trial court framed charges for the above offences against the appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed that he was not present at the spot and feigned ignorance regarding the manner in which his wife died. A witness Panchu Ram was examined in defence who alleged that Narayani was having illicit relations with one Shivshankar and that Laxman used to complain of this fact. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Shri Kalu Ram Bhati Advocate representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that there is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The prosecution case is based totally on conjectures and surmises. None of the witnesses examined at trial, alleged that the accused was seen assaulting the deceased. The evidence of the witnesses Balu, Narayan and Dharma is totally unbelievable as they are interested and related witnesses. The prosecution case is based totally on conjectures and surmises. None of the witnesses examined at trial, alleged that the accused was seen assaulting the deceased. The evidence of the witnesses Balu, Narayan and Dharma is totally unbelievable as they are interested and related witnesses. The plea that the accused was not present at the spot is substantiated by the circumstances available on record and the defence evidence. As per him, it is unbelievable that the accused would murder his own wife, steal her silver kadiyas and hide the same so as to create the evidence against himself. He thus urged that the entire prosecution case which is based sheerly on conjectures and surmises deserves to be discarded and the accused should be acquitted of the charges. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel. He contended that the accused was not on good terms with the deceased and used to bear a suspicion on her character. The defence witness D.W. 1 Panchu Ram stated in his examination in chief that Laxman used to confide in him that Narayani was having an illicit affair with Shivshankar. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of witnesses Balu, Narayan and Dharma, who deposed in a very convincing manner that Laxman called them to his house, which the witnesses saw, was empty. When the witnesses started returning, Laxman advised them to go to the Khakhra tree. There the three witnesses saw the body of Smt. Narayani tied to a tree. He urged that if at all, the prosecution had intended to create false evidence against the accused, then the witnesses could have made to depose as if they had witnessed the incident with their own eyes. He further contended that the truthfulness of the witnesses is further fortified from the fact that they did not even claim that any quarrel or dispute was existing between the spouses before the incident at hand. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the only possible inference which can be drawn from the fact that the accused took the three witnesses and pointed out the dead body of his wife to them which was tied to a tree, is that it was he who had the exclusive knowledge of Smt. Narayani's murder. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the only possible inference which can be drawn from the fact that the accused took the three witnesses and pointed out the dead body of his wife to them which was tied to a tree, is that it was he who had the exclusive knowledge of Smt. Narayani's murder. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of motive has been given by the defence witness D.W. 1 Panchu Ram who stated that the appellant had a suspicion on the character of his wife. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, there is ample material available on record of the case so as to establish the guilt of the appellant and hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar, minutely perused the impugned judgment and have reappreciated the evidence available on record. 9. Suffice it to say that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence because no witness examined either during the course of investigation or at the trial to claim that the accused was seen making the murderous assault on Smt. Narayani. 10. The fact that Smt. Narayani's death was homicidal is duly established by the evidence of Dr. Vijay Garg (P.W.7) who, as a member of the Medical Board, conducted the autopsy upon her body and issued the post mortem report (Ex. P16). As per the evidence of the doctor and the circumstances noticed by the Medical Board in the post mortem report, numerous marks of violence on the neck, abdomen, back nostrils etc. were noticed on the dead body of Smt. Naryanai. The hyoid bones and the carotid cartilages were damaged. Blood was seen in the abdominal cavity. Even the vagina of the deceased was bearing marks of violence. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The Board opined that the deceased had been murdered by strangulation associated with severe violence. Thus, it is established beyond all manner of doubt that Smt. Narayani was first assaulted by subjecting her to inhuman violence and thereafter, she was strangulated. Even the vagina of the deceased was bearing marks of violence. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The Board opined that the deceased had been murdered by strangulation associated with severe violence. Thus, it is established beyond all manner of doubt that Smt. Narayani was first assaulted by subjecting her to inhuman violence and thereafter, she was strangulated. The first informant P.W. 1 Kachru alleged in the F.I.R. that 7 to 8 days before the incident, the deceased had come to attend the marriage of his nephew and at that point of time, the accused tried to take away the deceased away from the matrimonial home on the very night and despite her resistance, he forced and fought with her. Thus, existence of some kind of strife between the husband and wife can very well be inferred from this incident. The three witnesses on whose evidence, the prosecution case primarily hinges are Balu (P.W.4), Narayan (P.W.5) and Dharma (P.W.6). All the three witnesses are cousins of the first informant Kachru and unequivocally stated that they were working at their well. In the evening at about 5 o'clock, Laxman came there and asked them to accompany him to his house. The witnesses went there and saw that the house was empty. Thereafter, the accused directed the witnesses to proceed towards the Khakhra tree. When the witnesses went there, they found that Narayani was lying dead, her dead body had been tied to a tree with a Sari. The witnesses then returned to their village and approached Kachru and told him of the incident. The witnesses did not try to exaggerate or improve their version even a bit. They honestly stated what they had actually witnessed making no claim whatsoever to become eyewitnesses of the assault. On going through the cross-examination conducted from all of the three witnesses, we find their version to be untainted and worthy of credence. In the cross-examination, not even shred of a suggestion was given to any of these three witnesses that Laxman did not approach them or that he did not send them towards the tree where, the dead body of deceased was tied. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses is beyond doubt and deserves full credence. 11. In the cross-examination, not even shred of a suggestion was given to any of these three witnesses that Laxman did not approach them or that he did not send them towards the tree where, the dead body of deceased was tied. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses is beyond doubt and deserves full credence. 11. Though the witnesses did not allege that they saw the assault with their own eyes but the fact that the accused pointed out the tree, where the dead body of his wife Smt. Narayani had been tied would lead to the only inference that the accused knew as to how his wife met the said fate. If at all the accused was unaware of the manner in which his wife was murdered and was innocent, then he could have approached the Police and lodged a report claiming that his wife had been murdered by some unknown man. Total lack of explanation by the accused on his aspect would give rise to the inescapable inference that he was the murderer. However, total lack of cross-examination from the three eye-witnesses referred to supra on the aspect that the accused called them and pointed out the dead body of his wife, leads to an irrefutable conclusion that the accused was responsible for murdering his wife by subjecting her to inhuman violence followed by strangulation. 12. So far as the recovery of the silver Kadiyas is concerned, it appears that the accused who otherwise also behaved with bravado took out the Kadiyas and hid the same at the place from where the same were recovered. Thus, the circumstance of recovery also incriminates the accused. 13. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court did not commit any error, infirmity or illegality whatsoever while convicting and sentencing the appellant as above. 14. The impugned judgment dated 1.2.2016 ex-facie does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality apparent on the face of record. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 16. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.