Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2324 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal Dhanka v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-28

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the trial court, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 452, 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.45 dated 13.02.2013 registered at Police Station Bhrampuri, District Jaipur (North) under Section 452, 302 IPC. 3. FIR was lodged by complainant Govind. Case of the prosecution as per the FIR, in brief, is that Asha, sister of the complainant was residing in House No.62/177 Bhomia Basti, New Indra Colony in front of Jalmahal. House of the sister of the complainant had been constructed on a hill. Husband of Asha had died about twenty years back. Due to this reason, Asha used to sometimes reside in her house and sometimes she used to reside with the complainant. For the last fifteen days, Asha was residing in her house at Bhomia Basti, New Indra Colony in front of Jalmahal. On 13.02.2013, complainant received a message at about 10.30 a.m. that Asha had been murdered by Mohan Lal Dhanka by inflicting injuries to her with a stick. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 452, 302 IPC by the trial court. 6. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 7. During trial, prosecution examined twenty two witnesses in order to prove its case. Dr. Pradeep Sharma was examined as a court witness. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was under treatment with regard to his mental condition. He had been under medication in the jail also and he was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. Appellant examined one witness in his defence. 8. Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 18.08.2018, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 452, 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Infact, appellant was of unsound mind and was under treatment in the jail. Hence, appellant was liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Infact, appellant was of unsound mind and was under treatment in the jail. Hence, appellant was liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. Appellant was got medically examined after about four/four and a half months of the incident. 10. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal. 11. Present case relates to murder of Asha Devi. Case rests on eye-witness account. 12. PW-2 Aarti deposed that about 3/4 months ago at about 6/7.00 a.m., she had gone to the roof of her house to prepare meals. Mohan Lal armed with a stick entered the house of Asha Devi and started inflicting injuries to her with the stick. Asha Devi raised alarm and came out of the room. Then, Mohan Lal also came out of the room and continued inflicting injuries to Asha Devi. Asha Devi suffered injuries on her head and started bleeding. She called her parents to the spot. Asha Devi was removed to the hospital for treatment. Appellant was apprehended at the spot by the prosecution witnesses who reached the place of incident on hearing the alarm raised by Asha Devi. 13. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW8 deposed as per the contents of the FIR. PW-3 Ram Kishore has deposed that police had immediately reached the spot and the appellant was apprehended. 14. PW-4 Sanjay Kumar has corroborated the statement of PW-3. 15. PW-12 Dr. Dharuv Singh deposed that on 13.02.2013, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi. He proved the postmortem report Exhibit P-14. The cause of death of the deceased was coma brought about as a result of antemortem head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 16. A perusal of Exhibit P-14 reveals that the deceased had suffered following injuries:- "1). Lacerated wound of size 5cm x cm bone deep over left side ring finger dorsal aspect. From base of 2nd metacarpal bone to base of 1st metacarpal bone c blood. 2). Puncture lacerated wound of sixe x muscle deep c blood over left side forearm upper pant dorsal aspect. 3). Bruise of size 3 x 2cm bluish in colour over left arm outer aspect middle pant. 4). From base of 2nd metacarpal bone to base of 1st metacarpal bone c blood. 2). Puncture lacerated wound of sixe x muscle deep c blood over left side forearm upper pant dorsal aspect. 3). Bruise of size 3 x 2cm bluish in colour over left arm outer aspect middle pant. 4). Abraded bruise of size 3 x 1 cm bluish in colour over left side shoulder. Supr (upper) pant. 5). Stitched wound of size 3cm c blood over right side mid parietal region, 9cm from right ear, Stitched wound of size 3cm c blood over left side mid parietal region, 10cm from left ear. There is a gap of 7cm in between both two injuries. 6). Lacerated wound of size 3 x cm bone deep over aspect of mid parietal region. 7). Lacerated wound of size 5cm x cm bone deep c blood over right side index finger outer aspect. 8). Abrasion of size 3 x 2 cm realistic colour over left dorsal of foot. 9). Stitched wound of size 11cm and 5cm c blood left side 11cm and 5cm over left side parietal temporal and left side occipital region. On dissection sub scalp hematoma over bilateral frontal right side parietal left parietal temporal occipital region with linear fracture of left parietal temporal bone c associated subarachnoid and subdural hematoma c multiple contusion of raring size over left parietal temporal and right parietal region. Note:- i). One dried blood gauze piece for ABO and RH grouping sealed in glass vial for chemical analysis. Opinion:- Cause of death is coma brought about as a result of above mentioned antemortem head injury. Sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature." 17. The other witnesses have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted in the case. 18. Thus, the ocular version is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Deceased had suffered number of injuries. As per the ocular version, appellant had inflicted injuries to the deceased in her room. Deceased ran out of the room while raising alarm. Thereafter, appellant followed her and inflicted further injuries to her. From the said fact, it is evident that the appellant had intentionally inflicted number of injuries to Asha Devi with a view to commit her murder. 19. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether, appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. Thereafter, appellant followed her and inflicted further injuries to her. From the said fact, it is evident that the appellant had intentionally inflicted number of injuries to Asha Devi with a view to commit her murder. 19. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether, appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. The fact that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident was liable to be established by the appellant. 20. DW-1 Manphooli Devi mother of the appellant has stated that the appellant was mentally unwell and was under treatment in the jail. In her cross-examination, she deposed that appellant had been under treatment in a big hospital, but she did not have any treatment record with her to establish the said fact. 21. Appellant was got medically examined on an application moved by him before the trial court. In this regard, court witness CW-1 Dr. Pradeep Sharma was examined. The said witness deposed that they had medically examined the appellant. Appellant was admitted in the hospital and his mental condition was watched and examined. The said witness proved the report Exhibit C-1. 22. The relevant portion of Exhibit C-1 opinion of the Board of Doctors of the Department of Psychiatry, SMS Medical College and Superintendent Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur reads as under:- "Mr. Mohanlal was evaluated in detail by the board. In the absence of past treatment records and reliable informant, history of past psychiatric illness can't be ruled out. On the basis of repeated mental status examination, observation of behavior in ward and clinical psychologist's evaluation he is not suffering from any gross psychopathology and he is currently able to understand court proceedings and to defend himself." 23. Thus, from the above opinion of the medical board, it is evident that the appellant was not suffering from any psychopathology and was able to understand the court proceedings and defend himself. Although, it has been pleaded by the appellant that he was taking treatment with regard to his mental illness, but no such medical record has been proved on record to establish the fact that, in-fact, appellant had been under treatment with regard to his mental illness before the incident. 24. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court has thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 452, 302 IPC. 24. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court has thus rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 452, 302 IPC. 25. No ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed.